Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DYFED BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration read.

Amendment agreed to.

To he read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Air Defences

Ms. Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to strengthen United Kingdom air defences.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): A major modernisation of the United Kingdom's air defences is now well advanced, including the build-up of the Tornado ADV force, the commissioning of improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment systems, and the purchase of Boeing E-3 airborne early warning aircraft.
I am pleased to announce that an order for a seventh E-3 aircraft has now been placed with the Boeing aircraft company. This will provide a significant enhancement over the six-aircraft fleet ordered earlier this year and a robust capability to mount continuous airborne early warning patrols. The cost of this aircraft will be accommodated within the provision for the defence budget announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 3 November.

Ms. Walley: Has the Secretary of State seen recent press reports and the "World in Action" programme describing the appalling state of our air defences? Does he agree that that is the real cost of Trident?

Mr. Younger: In the first place, the state of our air defences is not only very good, but considerably better than it has been for many years. Secondly, the Trident programme has been in our costings for a very long time and that is coining down in cost, not increasing. Neither part of the hon. Lady's question holds any water.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the Government came into office in 1979 we found to our horror that no provision had been made in the finances for the air defence part of the Tornado programme or for making the Hawk aircraft capable for local defence, and we inherited the Nimrod project?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The current dramatic improvement in the RAF's capability has

been achieved although no funding had been laid ahead when we came into office in 1979. That position has been put right by the Government.

Mr. Beith: Following the tragic deaths of two pilots in my constituency just over a week ago, is the Secretary of State prepared to consider a major review of the low-flying programme, as its contribution to the effectiveness of our air defences must be reduced by the enormous loss of life and expensive equipment that has been sustained?

Mr. Younger: We believe that any loss of life is too much; the loss of even one pilot a year is one too many. We try to keep those distressing accidents to an absolute minimum. However, this year's accidents, however tragic, are no worse in number than last year's accident figures, which were the best for a very long time. We keep the position carefully under review and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not take any of those events lightly.

Mr. Latham: All Conservative Members will endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend about the skill and determination of the Royal Air Force. What progress has been made in sorting out the electronic difficulties relating to the Tornado—the Foxhunter system?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right to state that there were some difficulties about that. After prolonged negotiations with the company we have agreed a way to go ahead with the Foxhunter radar, which I am convinced will produce an effective instrument for the aircraft when it comes into service.

Mr. Rogers: In view of the recent news that the Americans are to cancel their order for the Harrier aircraft — that will obviously increase the unit costs of the production of the Harrier — and in view of the substantial cuts in that part of the Government's Estimates, how will that affect our purchases of the Harrier and our air defences in the near future?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. The Harrier AV8B, which is the American version, is an important Anglo-US collaborative project. The RAF is firmly committed to its side of it, the Harrier GR5, which will enter service next year.
During my recent visit to Washington I made it clear that it would be a serious blow to Anglo-US collaboration if the United States cut orders. I was assured, however, that no decision to do so had yet been made, and I understand that that is still the position.

Chemical Weapons

Mr. William Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates his Department has made of Soviet chemical weapons capabilities.

Mr. Younger: The Soviet Union commands the world's largest and most sophisticated chemical warfare capability. It has produced and stockpiled a wide variety of chemical agents and munitions, and has a massive tonnage of nerve agent alone. It also has specialist troops dedicated to the chemical warfare role. Soviet servicemen are trained in the doctrine and tactics of chemical warfare, and Soviet land, sea and air forces maintain a variety of modern systems for delivering chemical attack.

Mr. Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the efforts by the British Government and their leadership in


the Geneva talks are widely welcomed? Will he confirm that, as the process of nuclear and chemical weapon disarmament continues, the Soviets' attitude to the elimination of all chemical weapons will be a crucial touchstone in relation to how we judge their general attitude to disarmament?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The United Kingdom is playing a very active role in the 40-nation conference on disarmament in Geneva. We chaired the ad hoc committee responsible for negotiations in 1986, when considerable progress was made on the difficult subject of verification.
The subject of negotiations provides a good example of what happens when one side unilaterally renounces a type of armament. We have done that since the 1950s. However, so far there is no sign that the Soviet Union has, as a result, lessened any of its efforts on the chemical warfare front.

Mr. James Lamond: Have not the Soviet Government offered a treaty banning all chemical weapons, and also offered to open up their manufacturing capability to inspection, while, at the same time, the President of the United States is still demanding additional funds for the deadly chemical binary weapon?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman has a very distorted view. The Soviet Union did not admit until six months ago that it had any chemical weapons. The United States has not made any chemical weapons, until now, for 17 years. During that time the Soviet Union has built up its capability vastly. While saying that they would like a worldwide ban—as we would—the Soviets have done exactly the reverse. We want a worldwide ban on all chemical and biological weapons. If the Soviet Union wants that, it can have it, as far as we are concerned.

Sir Anthony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather alarming that the Soviet Union has behaved in such a Machiavellian way?
Is it not some consolation, however, that the BAOR is probably better equipped to counter chemical weapons than are any of the other NATO allies?

Mr. Younger: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. While it is extremely difficult to equip troops to survive chemical weapon attacks, our efforts are generally admired and considered pretty effective. However, the general, overriding impression is that the West wishes a total ban on all chemical weapons, and, as soon as the Soviet Union is prepared to agree to that, we can have it.

Mr. Douglas: As Soviet and Warsaw pact representatives are viewing Operation Purple Warrior, is it possible for the Secretary of State to ask for some reciprocity, so that we can see how Soviet troops are trained in chemical warfare? Could he also give us some further information on how well our troops are protected against it?

Mr. Younger: Our troops have the capability to protect themselves against chemical weapons, and most of our new equipment is devised with that in mind.
I understand that Operation Purple Warrior is proceeding very well and that the observers from the Warsaw pact countries are receiving every possible help to observe the exercises. We are entitled to observe their exercises when they are of a sufficient size to merit it, and we shall, of course, be glad to do so.

NATO Nuclear Planning Group

Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group meeting in Monterey.

Mr. Younger: At the nuclear planning group meeting in Monterey on 3 and 4 November Ministers discussed a variety of security matters pertaining to NATO's nuclear forces.
In particular, we welcomed and fully supported the agreement in principle between the United States and the Soviet Union for the global elimination of land-based INF missiles above the range of 500 km and looked forward to an INF treaty being signed and ratified in the near future.
We also reaffirmed that the strategy of flexible response would remain the basis of the Alliance's security and stated our determination to take whatever measures might be required to safeguard the effectiveness, responsiveness and survivability of NATO's nuclear forces, while maintaining only the minimum forces necessary for credible deterrence.
A copy of the official communiqué for the Monterey meeting has been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Stevens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the impending INF deal represents a triumph for NATO's dual-track approach? Does he also agree that it would not have been possible if the approaches that were advocated by the Labour party had been pursued?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct on both points. This represents a triumph for the dual-track approach which was devised by NATO and put into effect against tremendous opposition from many circles, particularly the Opposition. If it had not been for that stand, we should not now have the agreement. It is an absolute vindication of the policy that we have been following since 1979.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is very little point in negotiating away ground-launched cruise missiles, only to bring them back again in an air-launched or sea-launched form? Does he also accept that there is a powerful case for improving the effectiveness of NATO's manned aircraft by providing them with a stand-off weapon that would ensure greater penetrability against Soviet air defences?

Mr. Younger: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point. As for his first question, the objective of all the negotiations and of the agreement that we very much hope is about to be signed is to reduce the number of nuclear warheads in Europe. I am convinced that the agreement will achieve that aim. When that has happened we shall have to make sure that our remaining armaments are credible and that they hold together as a coherent weapons system.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the presence in Europe of 326,000 American servicemen is the best guarantee that we shall not become decoupled from the United States? Does not this extraordinary agreement, which changes the defence landscape of Europe, make it even more important to start to address the imbalance between the Warsaw pact and NATO forces—in particular, its 2:1 preponderance of tanks and its 3:1 preponderance of artillery?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct on both points. The presence of American forces in many guises in western Europe is not only a guarantee of United States solidity with its European and free world allies against any threat, but shows that the United States takes the view that the first line of defence of the United States is in western Europe. The Government fully support what we hope will he the next stage—a START agreement on a reduction of up to 50 per cent. in strategic systems. During that period we hope that a major start will be made on dealing with the conventional imbalance and our long-standing demand for a worldwide ban on chemical and bilogical weapons.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Government have consistently maintained that the reason for the deployment of cruise missiles was the Soviet Union's deployment of SS20s. Under the INF agreement the Soviet Union will give up three times as much nuclear weaponry as the West. May we now take it, therefore, that we shall hear no more nonsense about compensatory adjustments in the wake of an INF' agreement? I hope that the Secretary of State will make it absolutely clear that there will be no gap in NATO's defences.

Mr. Younger: There has been no so-called nonsense from me about compensatory adjustments. There are two separate strands here. One is the implementation of the decisions that were taken four years ago at Montebello for the modernisation and bringing up to date of the existing nuclear weapons that are part of the West's armoury against attack. That process is only half completed. It must be completed as soon as possible.
We fully support the INF deal. and once it is concluded it will be normal and natural for NATO to review its weapons systems to ensure that they make sense, are coherent and hold together. Any necessary changes will have to be put forward as proposals to the allies before they are agreed.

Mr. Favell: I welcome the present negotiations, but will my right hon. Friend remind the House of Sir Winston Churchill's words in his last speech to Congress in, I think, 1951, in which he said that we should never abandon our atomic weapons until we were certain — indeed, more than certain — that we had other methods of defending ourselves?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. The object of the arms reduction process is to reduce the number of atomic weapons and warheads on the ground in Europe on both sides. At all times we must ensure that our security is preserved. For that reason we must ensure that we have a credible, flexible response to offer to any attack at low or high level, and that is our objective.

Norway and Denmark

Miss Mowlam: To ask the Secretary for Defence what British forces are currently committed to the reinforcement of Norway and Denmark.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Ian Stewart): The 3 Commando Brigade, as part of the United Kingdom-Netherlands amphibious force and the United Kingdom mobile force, has the reinforcement of the northern region as its principal role. The United Kingdom also makes a sgnificant contribution to the ACE mobile force, which has options to deploy there. In addition, RAF

Jaguars are specifically assigned to the northern region and a number of other RAF aircraft could also be deployed there.

Miss Mowlam: Will the Minister say whether he plans any cuts in that United Kingdom mobile force? Is he aware that if he does the Danes' response may be that NATO is no longer worth the effort?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that that is a necessary conclusion. We welcome the contribution of the Danes, and we should welcome a greater contribution from them. With regard to the United Kingdom mobile force, it is generally accepted that the current use is not the best one. That point was explained fully a few months ago by my predecessor in answer to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). That matter is presently under assessment at SHAPE, but no decisions have been taken.

Mr. Wilkinson: Were the British Government consulted before the Canadians decided to withdraw from their commitment to deploy a brigade to northern Norway? Will my hon. Friend say whether he will consider the possibility of compensating for that deficiency by deploying British troops on the northern flank? Paradoxically, the Canandians seem about to augment their presence on the central front.

Mr. Stewart: As my hon. Friend knows, these matters are extensively discussed among allied Governments. As to Britain being required to fill the role of the Canadians if they withdraw their CAST force, we have received no request from them or NATO to do that. As I said with regard to the United Kingdom mobile force, these matters are currently under consideration within NATO.

Mr. Sean Hughes: As the Norwegians can no longer depend on the CAST brigade, will the Minister say whether the Government will formally commit the Royal Marines to the defence of Norway? If not, who will be responsible?

Mr. Stewart: It would be unwise for me to prejudge the consideration that these questions are being given within NATO. It is in that context that our force is part of SACEUR's strategic reserve.

Mr. Ward: My hon. Friend is well aware of the activities of the Royal Marines in Norway, but will he continually hear in mind the need to increase its airborne assault capability for use not only in the northern sector but in other parts of the world?

Mr. Stewart: Like my hon. Friend, I have the highest regard for the Royal Marines and their capability for amphibious operations. The Purple Warrior exercise that is currently under way has demonstrated their professionalism. My hon. Friend should not underestimate the scale of equipment and ships that are available, but we are anxious to ensure that we maintain our capabilities.

Armilla Patrol

Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what point defence the Royal Navy's frigates and destroyer currently on Armilla patrol have against sea-skimming missiles.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The ships serving on the Armilla patrol are provided with self-defence equipment relevant to the range of threats in the region.

Mr. Barron: Is the Minister saying that the three ships do not have the last-ditch point defence system that is needed for them to defend themselves against sea-skimming missiles? Why were the Phalanx-equipped type-42s or batch 3 type-22s not sent out?

Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we rotate the ships on the Armilla patrol. They have a variety of layers of air defence, including long-range surveillance radar, medium-range Sea Dart missiles and point defence Sea Wolf missiles, close-in weapons systems such as Phalanx and Goalkeeper, and also soft-kill measures such as jammers and decoys. [Interruption.] It may be a matter of amusement to Opposition Members, but the protection of our ships in the Gulf is a matter that we take seriously.
None of our ships is likely to have the whole range of all the available weapons systems. I should like to add a final point—[Interruption.]—if I am allowed to do so. It is not in the interests of the safety of our ships in the Gulf for us to comment on the likely form of response to particular kinds of attack.

Mr. Hayward: Were not there recommendations, arising out of the Falklands war, that type-22s and type-23s should urgently be fitted with vertical-launch Sea Wolf defence systems? Are such programmes somewhat behind schedule? In the interests of the Royal Navy, could they be brought forward?

Mr. Stewart: I appreciate the importance of Sea Wolf, as does my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement who is pursuing the matter. We hope that the systems will be available and operative as soon as possible.

Mr. Tony Banks: Where does the Minister get terminology such as "soft-kill"? How many perverters of the English language are employed in the Ministry of Defence to dream up such expressions? How much is the Armilla patrol costing the British taxpayer? What contribution is he asking for from multinational oil companies such as Shell and Esso for protecting their ships?

Mr. Stewart: The Armilla patrol is part of the Royal Navy's operations. We do not separately cost individual aspects of it. I should have thought that taxpayers — individuals and companies — would be perfectly willing that part of the revenue that they pay to the Government for income tax, corporation tax and other taxes should go to maintain freedom of British shipping in the Gulf.

French Minister of Defence

Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet the French Minister of Defence.

Mr. Younger: I next expect to meet M. Giraud in December.

Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the inter-service co-operation that has flowed from the talks is warmly to be welcomed? What are the ultimate objectives of his talks with the French?

Mr. Younger: Certainly, co-operation on the level of exercising and liaison between British and French forces is developing well and is increasing every year. The ultimate objective is to have closer defence relations with

our friends across the Channel, in the hope that we can have mutual equipment collaboration with them and, of course, have close liaison with their forces.

Dr. Owen: Now that President Reagan has called for a more equal relationship between the United States and Europe within NATO, is it clear that the United States would welcome greater Anglo-French co-operation on nuclear matters and, in particular, would not impair our entering into a joint collaborative project to extend the range of the ASMP—air sol moyenne portée—to 400 km or beyond?

Mr. Younger: Certainly our friends in the United States would greatly welcome closer relations between ourselves and the French and between ourselves and other NATO allies. We should be glad to discuss a French air-launch missile in case there is any way in which we and France can collaborate in this important matter.

Sir John Farr: When my right hon. Friend meets the French Minister, will he point out to him that there is still a chance for France to join in our plans for the European fighter aircraft? Will he bear in mind also the fact that, years ago, the French not only refused to join in plans for this modern aircraft, which is the most advanced in the world, but did their best to torpedo the scheme?

Mr. Younger: The French fighter aircraft Rafale is a matter for the French Government to deal with as they consider best from their point of view. As we have made clear, the European fighter aircraft is being considered by ourselves and our partners—not including the French—and I am glad to say that discussions of the next stage are proceeding well.

Mr. O'Neill: While on the subject of collaborative projects, will the Minister confirm that his discussions with the French have included the NFR-90? Will he confirm that the project, which seems to be the best hope for the warship building industry in this country, will go ahead and that yesterday's report in the Daily Mail, maintaining that Britain is about to back out of the project, is wrong?

Mr. Younger: I have seen the reports and I confirm that at my next meeting with the French Minister—as at my last meeting with him—I expect the NFR-90 to be one of the matters for discussion. The Government's concern about the programme has been related to the method by which to address the next stage, and we are still negotiating with our allies about that. There is no truth in any suggestion that we have pulled out of the project.

Mr. Hind: In his discussions with Mr. Giraud, will my right hon. Friend resist the blandishments of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) in suggesting that there should be co-operation over nuclear deterrence? Does he agree that if that happened it would mean that the Trident submarine deterrent was deployed at a much later date, with the result that the United Kingdom would be undefended once Polaris became obsolete?

Mr. Younger: I should make it clear that although I have discussed a whole range of defence subjects with my French colleague, there is no proposal for any joining together of the French and British deterrents, which operate separately. At the moment I cannot envisage circumstances in which it would make sense for only one


deterrent to be operated or for the other to be expected to operate on our behalf. Further co-operation is a very good idea, but it falls short of amalgamating the two systems.

Nimrod Airframes

Mr. Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use is currently being made of the Nimrod airframes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): We are considering a number of possible uses for the Nimrod airborne early warning aircraft. In the meantime they are being held in storage.

Mr. Cummings: Instead of leaving the 11 Nimrod airframes to rot, why does the Secretary of State not convert them for use as maritime surveillance aircraft or, indeed, use them to supplement the five aging and antiquated Shackleton aircraft and so recoup some of the taxpayers' money that has been spent?

Mr. Sainsbury: We are considering a wide range of possibilities for the aircraft's use. We are anxious to make the right decisions and we are taking time to ensure that we do.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend consider much more seriously and urgently the need for more maritime patrol aeroplanes? Is not the greatest threat facing the Supreme Command Atlantic the submarine threat? Is not that threat becoming more sophisticated, with boats that are ever quieter and deeper-diving? Is there not an imperative need to enhance the maritime patrol aircraft availability of our Alliance?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has made some valid observations about Warsaw pact submarines. The points that he has made will be among those taken into account when we reach our decision on the future of the airframes.

Trident

Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what precise extent the operational efficiency and viability of the Trident missile is dependent on United States maintenance and supplies.

Mr. Younger: As said during the defence debate on 27 October. arrangements were made in 1982 for United Kingdom-owned missiles to be processed at the United States facility in Kings Bay, Georgia. This processing will take place at the same time as the missile-carrying submarine is undergoing major refit. The arrangement with the United States is, of course, intended to maintain the operational efficiency of the missiles and thus of the United Kingdom deterrent. I am fully satisfied that this aim will be achieved and that the return of the missiles to the United States in no way affects the continuous deployment of the United Kingdom deterrent force, which is at all times under the operational control of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Allen: Has the Secretary of State read the Ministry of Defence papers from the 1940s when the United Kingdom was last involved in a lend-lease arrangement with the United States? Will he admit to the House that we are in a position of complete dependency on the United States for maintenance and that the independent nuclear deterrent is a charade?

Mr. Younger: I would have thought that there was every evidence that, during the last war, in the 1940s the United States lend-lease arrangement was a lifeline for this country. However, there is no connection between that arrangement and the Trident system where, at all times, Britain owns all the missiles that it needs for its system.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while Trident is on station, and between the major refits on the submarines, the remaining submarines will be serviced in Scotland and that that will be good for Scotland and for jobs in Scotland, because the missiles can be serviced in the tubes?

Mr. Younger: That is correct. At present the Polaris submarines are refitted at Rosyth in Scotland and the Trident submarine will also be refitted at Rosyth. The only difference is that the missiles will be refurbished in Georgia and not Britain.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is it not an indictment of the Government that, while billions of pounds can be found to pay for Trident, the National Health Service relies on charities to buy the equipment that it needs to keep people alive? Is that not something that the Government have to face up to and explain?

Mr. Younger: Fortunately, under this Government not only are we able to find enough money to keep our defences in good shape, our security safe and peace in our time, but we are able to increase substantially the funding for the National Health Service, which is to be seen in falling waiting lists and better service generally throughout the country.

Mr. McLoughlin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Trident programme.

Mr. Younger: The Trident programme continues to make good progress. It is on time and within budget and planned to enter service in the mid-1990s.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the cost of the purchase of Trident has fallen dramatically since the first decisions to go ahead were announced? Will he inform the House of the contractual commitments of the Trident programme, for example up to the year 1992? Does he agree that the Labour party's plans to scrap it and spend more money on conventional defence will look even less sensible in 1992 than in 1987?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was able to announce earlier this year, when I announced the annual recosting of the Trident programme, that not only had there been a substantial reduction in its cost because of favourable exchange rates, but that there had been a real reduction in its cost because of economies of about £546 million. Therefore, the cost of the Trident programme is going down, not up. Fortunately, the Labour party's plans are unlikely ever to come into effect. Any idea that the Labour party had, however unrealistic, of cancelling Trident and using the money on something else is now completely impossible because by the earliest time the Labour party could form a Government, the Trident programme would be substantially completed.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that the whole world is how hoping that the scaling down of intermediate nuclear missiles will take place and that following that there will be a scaling down of the strategic missiles owned by the


Soviet Union and the United States? Is it not also a fact that in those circumstances the Trident missile would be just a status symbol in the hands of this country, costing at least £10 billion, and that it will not mean anything if the great missiles of the other two nations are not scaled down?

Mr. Younger: I share entirely the hon. Gentleman's aims and views on the reduction of nuclear missiles in the world, both intermediate and strategic. It is the hon. Gentleman's sadness that he is having to rely on a Conservative Government to achieve the reductions, rather than just talk about them. Of course, it is the case that the reductions in nuclear weapons are designed to lessen tension in the world, but we get no further forward by pretending that in some way we can do without any defence or security for ourselves. That is simply unrealistic.

Defence Contracts

Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of defence contracts in the latest year for which figures are available were subject to competition; and how this compares with 1979–80.

Mr. Sainsbury: The proportion of defence contracts placed by competitive tender or otherwise by reference to market forces in 1986–87 was 53 per cent. The comparable figure for 1979–80 was 30 per cent.

Mr. Watts: Has my hon. Friend made any assessment of the impact of the competition initiative in reducing defence costs, and has that had any effect on the proportion of contracts that have been awarded to smaller defence contractors?

Mr. Sainsbury: It is difficult to make an accurate assessment of what the price would have been for any particular contract if it had been awarded other than by reference to competition. However, we are confident that substantial savings are being achieved, and a number were listed in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". On the percentage of contracts going to smaller firms, which we regard as important, we are striving through the small firms initiative to ensure that the maximum number of small firms have a real opportunity to participate in work for the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that much the more meaningful comparison between now and 1979–80 in respect of defence contracts is that, unlike then, a gap is now opening up between commitments and resources, which some analysts compute as being as high as £8 billion? When he gets back to his Department, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State why there was no mention of that in the Defence Estimates?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are spending substantially more on defence than would have been spent under a Labour Administration. Furthermore, we are ensuring that we get the best possible value for money in our expenditure.

NATO (Flexible Response)

Sir Antony Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's strategy of flexible response.

Mr. Ian Stewart: NATO's strategy of flexible response remains fully valid and continues to be a sound basis for the security of Alliance members.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that the credibility of that doctrine depends on our maintaining our defence capability at all levels—in the nuclear and conventional spheres, on land, in the sea and in the air? Does he agree that unilateralism is the enemy of multilateralism?

Mr. Stewart: I agree entriely with my hon. Friend that the unilateralist campaign has obstructed not only the improvement of our own security, but progress in arms control. Now and at all times, the security of the United Kingdom and of our NATO allies is the prime concern of our policy.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Minister confirm that that flexible response includes taking compensatory measures to introduce nuclear warheads and air and sea-launched missiles to compensate for those that have been removed under the INF talks? Will he give the House the categorical undertaking that any such compensatory measures will not result in a greater number of nuclear weapons being committed to Europe than is currently the case with INF weapons?

Mr. Stewart: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we intend that the INF agreement, if and when it is achieved, will result in fewer nuclear weapons in Europe. On force adjustments, it is always necessary for us to deploy our assets, whether conventional or nuclear, in the way that is most effective for our own defence. We shall continue to do that in the light of changing circumstances, including arms control.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister join me in acknowledging the role played by the mercantile marine in our flexible response to every past conflict? Does he share my astonishment that, in Exercise Purple Warrior, which is taking place in the south-west of Scotland and is being observed by east European countries, virtually the entire Merchant Navy presence has had to be brought in from foreign countries because of its systematic rundown by the Government? Does he agree that, from a defence as well as a civil point of view, the destruction of the British Merchant Navy and the virtual elimination of the Red Ensign is one of the Government's badges of shame?

Mr. Stewart: I have a high regard for the British merchant marine, just as the hon. Gentleman has. What I do not accept is the assumption that it is being run down in a dangerous or unsatisfactory way. May I point out that the reason why the ships taken up from trade for Exercise Purple Warrior came from other countries in Europe was that they were willing to make ships available on more competitive terms than British operators. Had it been otherwise, we would have been glad to take British ships.

Mr. Denzil Davies: In a previous answer the Secretary of State mentioned the Montebello agreement and what is described as modernisation. Will the Government now support the West German Government in pressing for talks on the removal of battlefield nuclear weapons at the same time as talks on conventional weapons because, very often, those battlefield weapons are present because of the conventional imbalance?

Mr. Stewart: I have no doubt that we shall have to address seriously the whole question of conventional


balance in the light of the arms control agreement that appears now to be in prospect. The question of battlefield nuclear weapons comes into that context, but I certainly do not think that it should come first.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Rooker: Does the Prime Minister accept that, when the state causes an avoidable injustice to a citizen, compensation and help should he swift and substantial? That being so, why is there such a delay in dealing with the legitimate claim of 1,200 of our fellow citizens who suffer from haemophilia and who have contracted the AIDS virus from the use of dirty blood products? They were not to blame and we need to help them.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering this matter and I hope that he will have a statement to make shortly.

Mr. Peter Robinson: During the course of the day, will the Prime Minister reflect upon the massacre in Enniskillen on Sunday? As Ulster once again buries its dead, will she attempt to project herself forward into the meetings at council chambers up and down Northern Ireland where Unionists councillors and others have to sit down with representatives of the Provisional IRA? Will she take the obvious and logical step to proscribe Sinn Fein and any other organisation that supports terrorism?

The Prime Minister: We are concerned about the presence in Northern Ireland of district councillors who support terrorist violence. We believe that parties should choose between violence and democratic ways. A recent discussion paper canvassed a number of possible solutions to this problem, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will consider what further steps should be taken in the light of comments received. The possibility of proscribing a number of organisations, Sinn Fein and UDA among them, is kept under review, but proscription is a blanket measure that would go further than the specific problem. We shall await further consultation results before we make up our mind.

Mr. Kinnock: May I first say how much I agree with the view expressed by the Prime Minister that those who pursue the so-called joint strategy of the ballot and the bullet are guilty of both hypocrisy and complete incompatability with a democracy. Will the right hon. Lady accept that, even in the wake of the barbarism at Enniskillen, she is completely right to resist demands for the return of internment, since that would be more likely to give some form of perverse reward to the terrorists than enhanced security? Can the Prime Minister now tell us whether she will be meeting the Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, to consider new joint initiatives to improve security and intensify the use of the Anglo-Irish Agreement for that purpose?

The Prime Minister: At the moment I have no plans to meet the Taoiseach. I shall be seeing him in the margins of the European Council at the beginning of December. I believe that at the moment events are speaking very loudly to those who have important decisions to make.

Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the unity of condemnation in the House against the outrage on Sunday should be followed by unity of purpose in dealing with terrorism? Does that suggest to my right hon. Friend that those who have consistently opposed the Prevention of Terrorism Act should now reconsider their position?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Prevention of Terrorism Act will come up for renewal in the coming year and I hope that we shall have unity of purpose in supporting it.

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Prime Minister aware of the Age Concern prediction that almost 1 million pensioners are at risk this winter? As she has stated that she needs the comfort of a £100 cashmere sweater to keep warm, what does she intend to do to prevent less well-off pensioners from freezing to death this winter?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the heating additions are higher than they have ever been, both on the regular supplementary benefit, where they go the whole year through to enable people to buy cheaper coal during the summer if they wish, and the severe weather payments, which have been the object of many questions in the House and which we have changed so that we now believe that they will achieve the best possible results.

Mr. Hayes: I hope that my right hon. Friend is greatly encouraged by the fact that on Sunday every Catholic priest in Ireland will be preaching on the sinfulness of those who harbour the Remembrance Day butchers. Does she agree that when those people are brought to justice, it must be British justice, before a British court and a British judge, and that any foreign Government who attempt to foil this will not be forgiven or forgotten by the House?

The Prime Minister: I think that we are all encouraged by the universal condemnation and repugnance felt by the whole world about the vile act that took place in Enniskillen. I agree with my hon. Friend that the justice in Northern Ireland is the justice of the United Kingdom and the courts of the United Kingdom.

Select Committees

Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received about the establishment of Select Committees to monitor Government Departments.

The Prime Minister: I have received a small number of representations, including one from the hon. Member.

Mr. Allen: Does the Prime Minister agree that the inability to bring forward and to find time on the Floor


of the House for a given number of reports from Select Committees that are meant to oversee Government Departments weakens the accountability of the Government in the parliamentary process? Will she make representations to her hon. Friends to bring forward the recommendations of the Procedure Committee to ensure that Select Committees have a proper place in our parliamentary process?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there were motions on the Order Paper about Select Committees which were objected to yesterday, and which are still on the Order Paper today. Select Committees have an important role. They have a considerable number of days allocated to them for debate, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is not enough he should have a word with his Front Bench to secure more of the Opposition's days.

Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Ombudsman committee already does an excellent job in overseeing Government Departments? Will she consider extending the jurisdiction of that committee to include the Police Complaints Authority?

The Prime Minister: Any such questions should be addressed in the first place to the Leader of the House. I am wary about saying anything about Select Committees without first consulting my right hon. Friend, for very good reasons.

Mr. Bell: When the Prime Minister considers the establishment of Select Committees to monitor Government Departments, will she consider a Select Committee to monitor the progress of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Does she agree with the Government of the Republic of Ireland that, with the Government of the United Kingdom, we can use the agreement to put behind us the tragic events of Sunday and seek peace, stability and reconciliation for the whole of Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement offers the best chance that we have of enhancing security co-operation with the Irish. My right hon. Friend will be having further urgent talks with Irish Ministers about security. Perhaps the statement that we had yesterday and the universal expressions of opinion from both sides of the House spoke volumes more than any Select Committee could.

Sir John Farr: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that quite a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House think that we are getting on rather well without Select Committees? Bearing in mind the excesses of some of the Select Committees in the last Parliament, will she not be in a hurry to see that they are re-established?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, motions on the membership of most of the Select Committees were put before the House yesterday and objected to. They remain on the Order Paper and the House will have an opportunity to consider them in the normal way.
I have heard what my hon. Friend has said about the Select Committees. The House decided that they should monitor each Department, and we therefore do not have anything like a Science and Technology Committee. If I am allowed to have a personal opinion, I must say that I have always rather regretted that.

Engagements

Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Alton: In the discussions between the British and Irish Governments, will the Prime Minister look carefully at the establishment of a joint security commission and the need for a unitary judicial system and joint anti-terrorist legislation, passed both by the Dail and Westminster? Does she agree about the paramount importance of the Dail enacting the new extradiction agreement on 1 December?

The Prime Minister: I see no reason at all to have a joint security commission. The Anglo-Irish Agreement enables us to consider security matters—the Republic of Ireland to raise them with us, and we to raise them with Ministers from the Republic of Ireland—so that, by co-operation, we may achieve better security. We must operate that agreement, trying all the time to enhance security.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that every nation should fight terrorism — every single one. I hope that people will consider, among other things, where the arms are coming from and what action they can take through their ordinary policies about that. We must all fight terrorism, but between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom we must fight it through the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Thornton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of an initiative by the Liverpool Society of Chartered Accountants and the Merseyside task force that is called "Business Opportunities on Merseyside"? Is she also aware that that initiative was launched at a well-attended conference this morning at the Barbican? Will my right hon. Friend congratulate those bodies on showing the real face of Merseyside, and reaffirm her view that a partnership between the public and private sectors is the best way to regenerate our inner cities?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, particlarly about the need for more businesses — especially small businesses—to start up. It is vital that the local authority welcomes private enterprise and the operations of the private sector.

Mr. Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Prime Minister aware of the anxiety expressed by Scottish parents, teachers and churches about the Government's school management proposals, which are designed more for England than for Scotland? Does she agree that, after a period of prolonged industrial dispute and massive curriculum changes, we require stability rather than divisive, alien ideas, which have been forced upon an unwilling population and on what is still arguably the best education system in Europe?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the Bill coming before the House concerning education in Scotland is designed to give parents more power and influence over their schools. That is a good thing to do and will be welcomed by many Scottish parents.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in terms of sustained growth and profitability, British industry is stronger now than it has been for 20 years? Will she further confirm that, in addition to making representations to the United States Government about reducing their budget, and, therefore, their trade deficit, representations should also be made to countries such as West Germany and Japan — which have practised unduly restrictive trade and monetary policies over the past few years—to avoid an unnecessary fall in world trade?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that British industry is healthy, fit and flourishing, that its profitability is higher than it has been for many years and that it is exporting well, particularly manufactured products. With regard to the wider economic scene, it is absolutely vital that we first have decisions upon the deficit in the United States and how the President and Congress together propose to deal with it. I agree with my hon.

Friend that as soon as we have that it is vital for there to be a meeting of the G7 countries and to get co-operation, especially from Japan and Germany, about what they and we can do to help implement the decision from the United States to restore confidence in the world economic community.

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Salmond: Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing concern that NIREX, having failed to dump nuclear waste in East Anglia, is turning its attention to Scotland? However poorly the Prime Minister may think of us, does she accept that the people of Scotland will not tolerate the country being used as a dumping ground for Europe's nuclear waste?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member is aware, the question of how nuclear waste will be disposed of is still under consideration. He will also be aware that we all, including Scotland, have nuclear power stations. I am sure that he supports those nuclear power stations and also supports the interesting experiments at Dounreay into a different method of nuclear generation.

Data Protection Act 1984 (Amendment)

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Data Protection Act 1984.
Data protection is a complicated subject. Some people think it has its own language. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members are leaving the Chamber, will they please leave quietly?

Mr. Cohen: The Minister last week described me as an aficionado on the subject for asking parliamentary questions and trying to extend the rights of individuals. Data protection is like a freedom of information right for individuals to see the computer records that are held on them. Access should be as wide as possible. Exemptions, restrictions and denial of access should be kept to a minimum. The Data Protection Act 1984 does not do that. It is much too narrow and seriously deficient in many respects.
Tomorrow is data day when subject access will be available, but it will be far too expensive. For example, answers to parliamentary questions that I have asked show that someone may have to spend £900 to get information from the Department of Employment, £720 at the Scottish Office, £700 at the Home Office, £420 at the Welsh Office and £300 at Agriculture. As well there are loopholes. Some universities have already devised ways round the Act to ensure that students will not have access to examination marks to which they should be entitled.
Already under the Act the new rights can be used to the disadvantage of the data subject. For example, an insurance company could require a data subject to obtain a copy of his own medical data before offering life insurance and treat the person as a bad risk or uninsurable if he did not supply the information. This will work to the detriment of data subjects. Also, under the Act access to one's personal information held on a computer is constrained by a multitude of subject access exemptions. There is no consistency or logic to justify what should be properly held. There needs to be a proper procedure for data subjects to check suspicions effectively.
My thorough Bill will provide for that, will rectify many of the deficiencies in the Act and will make substantial improvements. I have had wide-ranging consultations with many groups to find the best compromise to improve the current Act. Last summer I distributed the first draft to many representative groups which are in contact with the registrar. The constructive comments I have received have been most helpful in drafting the revised Bill. I should like to thank all those who offered advice and support.
For example, the Freedom of Information Campaign called the first draft of my Bill a very valuable reform. The Churches Main Committee told me that my reform of registration "would be welcomed" and the Institute of Data Processing Management said that the concept of using data codes of practice instead of registration was delightful. Even the National Computer Centre, although not agreeing with every point in the previous Bill, thought that some of my ideas were useful improvements.
The main improvements put forward in my Bill are, first, that registrations will be necessary in relatively few cases. That aspect of the Bill should be attractive to small

businesses, as it will remove at a stroke all the red tape, or should I say blue tape because the Act is a Tory creation, which businesses so frequently complain about.
My Bill contains a list of categories of personal data and purposes that require to be registered, but for the first time they will embrace many public sector data records. These will relate only to the most sensitive personal datum, which is specified. Most businesses will not have to register, and so they will be relieved of bureaucratic arrangements.
My Bill would allow statutory codes of practice to be introduced. The arguments about statutory or voluntary codes were dealt with by the Lindop committee. I agree with its conclusion—that bad apples, so to speak, might take advantage of non-regulatory regimes.
Last year, the consumer protection legislation incorporated statutory codes of practice, and I have taken the opportunity to use the same wording. My Bill allows for a gradual change-over from registration to operation under codes of practice, which is favoured by industrial, commercial and public sector data users. These codes of practice will be supervised by and agreed with the data users to comply with the law; they will clarify the responsibilities of users.
Properly adhered to, such codes of practice provide security for data users against prosecution and claims for compensation. Thus, the changes will bring benefits to data users, who will also have responsibilities.
In particular, there will be a need to provide data subject access. In that respect, my Bill provides for stronger policing powers for the registrar, who is given power to undertake random spot checks, and to inspect personal data that are the subject of a complaint or a dispute. In addition, a data subject will be able to appeal to an independent data protection tribunal against the refusal of the registrar to serve an enforcement notice on a data user. I propose that the registrar will be able to use the new powers to scrutinise developments such as the Government's data network, the proposed poll tax registers, share and electoral registers, and even records of the security services and the police national computers, subject to proper safeguards.
I frankly admit that these proposals are not likely to find favour with the Government, who have shown scant regard for civil liberties. They have Sarah Tisdall, Clive Ponting, Peter Wright and raids on the BBC on their record, so they almost certainly do not want to see legislation that might get in the way. However, we need a data protection watchdog with the ability to bite as well as bark, not one of the authoritarian fiefdoms that form part of this Government, who abuse the collection of personal data on computer.
For the first time, my Bill will bring within the ambit of the Act personal data held on individuals for national security purposes. This will be done by allowing one of the data registrar's staff who has sufficiently high security clearance, or a member of the Security Commission, to investigate a complaint and make reports. My Bill, unlike the current Act, will ensure that data subjects will have an uncomplicated right of access to their personal data. Where an exemption applies, my Bill establishes a consistent test with which it must comply. The registrar, in the circumstances surrounding an access exemption, can inspect the data in question before deciding whether to allow access to it. A data user and a data subject can appeal to an independent data protection tribunal.
The registrar, subject to issuing a warrant signed by a circuit judge, is given powers of inspection of any data user or computer installation, if he suspects a breach of the law and data protection principles.
Instead of the subject access fee, which I have already said is exorbitant, my Bill provides for a maximum fee to be prescribed for all personal data held by a user. I get rid of the crazy non-disclosure provisions, which are complex and confusing, and fundamentally designed to deter people from realising that they can obtain computer information that is held on them. [Interruption.] I also provide an order-making power to extend those principles to manual records. The National Consumer Council has already said that some people are putting information on manual files to avoid the Data Protection Act and that should be stopped.
My Bill is based on the Data Protection Act as far as possible, as many data users, as well as the registrar, have already established procedures to deal with the current legislation. [interruption.] But it improves it substantially and builds on that existing legal framework, experience and knowledge. It is a forerunner of future change in this area, and that may even be necessary in this parliamentary Session as the deficiencies in the Data Protection Act gather pace. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Alan Meale and Ms. Joan Ruddock.

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1984 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Data Protection Act 1984: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 January and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In presenting his ten-minute Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) had to battle against a chorus of noise for most of his speech. I

and, I suspect, many other hon. Members who wished to hear what he was saying were prevented from so doing. The usual procedure is for Members to have 10 minutes, but if that tactic is to be pursued in this Session, will you, Mr. Speaker, extend the time so that Members can be heard in reasonable conditions?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that as Members left the Chamber immediately after Prime Minister's questions I drew attention to the need to leave the Chamber quietly. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I heard the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) perfectly clearly, and I am sorry if my microphones are stronger than those for other hon. Members.

Palace of Westminster (Security)

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you about the internal security of the Palace of Westminster? Two services now exist — the custodian and security service, and the police. It seems to be a growing practice for the custodian service — no insult to it — whose members cannot be as well trained as the police force, whose members have a rigorous training for some years, to replace the police force in some of the passages of the Commons that lead from the Members' Entrance. Do you agree that we should not diminish the power and right of the police in the Palace to save a few pounds by replacing them with a custodian service, good as it is, which is not as well trained as the British police force?

Mr. Speaker: This is one service, under the control of the Head of Security. I shall look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman has said. Deployment is not really a matter for me, but I take note of what he has said.

House of Commons (Services)

Mr. Speaker: Before we start the debate, I should tell the House that I have selected all the amendments on the Order Paper. It might be for the convenience of the House if we had a general debate based on the main motion, although it will be perfectly in order for right hon. and hon. Members to draw attention to their amendments in the course of the debate.
In addition, I have accepted a manuscript amendment to amendment (c) from the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). At 7 o'clock I will call upon hon. Members to move their amendments formally in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. May we know the terms of the manuscript amendment that you have decided to call?

Mr. Speaker: Copies of the manuscript amendment are in the Vote Office. However, it may be for the convenience of the House if I state that the amendment reads:
line 1, leave out 'research assistants' and insert 'Members' personal staff'".

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That this House endorses the application of the recommendation contained in paragraph 23 of the Second Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in Session 1984–85 (House of Commons Paper No. 195); and invites the Select Committee to consider the wider implications for control over access to the precincts of the House.
The threat of terrorism and the physical limitations of the Palace of Westminster raise issues which require debates in this House from time to time and on which it is appropriate for the House to seek the advice of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services). Security is of the greatest importance. It does not need me, of all people, to remind the House of what terrorism means. Not only have we been shocked in recent days by a new outrage in Northern Ireland; this House has itself been the victim of terrorism, when the late Airey Neave was murdered in New Palace Yard and when Westminster Hall was damaged by a bomb. Hon. Members must be able to pursue their duties to their constituents and the country in safety, with a reasonable balance between the numbers of staff working in the Palace and the facilities available to them and other hon. Members in these historic buildings.
I shall deal at once with the specific occasion for this debate—the suspension of the pass issued to a research assistant employed by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). The free and unescorted access to all parts of the precincts of the House conferred by a photo pass is a valuable privilege. Not only does it allow the holder to use the limited space and facilities of the House; it allows the holder to mingle with hon. Members and to pass unhindered through the building. There is, therefore, a clear threat if a pass should fall into the wrong hands.
Mr. Speaker, you are charged personally with the responsibility on behalf of the House for the part of the Palace of Westminster that we occupy. The safety of hon. Members and of the staff who serve them is given the highest priority by you, by the House authorities and by the police, and in my view it is absolutely right that this should be so. The Serjeant at Arms has day-to-day

responsibility for the security of the House, liaising with the police. The Serjeant is answerable to you, Mr. Speaker. Ultimately, of course, as your predecessor Speaker Lenthall said more than 300 years ago in a famous remark often recalled by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), you are the servant of the House. As you exercise your responsibilities to ensure the safety of the House, you are entitled to expect its support.
A Speaker bears a heavy responsibility, and it is right that he should be free to call for advice as he thinks fit. You have confirmed, Mr. Speaker, that like your predecessors you have been advised on security matters by an informal committee including hon. Members drawn from both sides of the House, although I am sure that you are ready to listen to advice from any quarter where it may be offered. The Services Committee, for example, may take, and does take, security considerations into account in any advice it may give you and any recommendations that it may make.
The arrangements made by the House authorities for regulating photo-identity passes have been much discussed in recent months.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Leader of the House accept that there is no dispute between hon. Members about the danger of terrorism? It did not take Sunday's tragedy for us to recognise that and, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, he has had tragic experience of the effects of actions by terrorists and their capabilities. Is it not a question of the Leader of the House trying to ensure that, if there is an adverse report on anyone intended to be employed by an hon. Member, that person should have some redress'? The divide between the Government and the Opposition is that that does not happen now and the Government do not intend to change that position? Therefore Mr. Bennett, who is considered to be unsafe and unworthy to be employed here, has no way of clearing his name. Is not that very important?

Mr. Wakeham: Of course, that is a very important issue, and I shall deal with it directly in my speech. However, I should prefer to deal with points in the sequence in which I have organised them in my speech.
As I have said, the arrangements made by the House authorities for regulating photo-identity passes have been much discussed in recent months, but I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I draw attention to some of the key points now. First, passes have never been awarded lightly. Even before the introduction of the new photo pass system in 1982, the police carried out checks in cases where this was appropriate on applicants to whom passes had been issued.
Second, although the term "vetting" has tended to be used in discussions of this procedure, it is misleading. The checks carried out by the police are not the same as the vetting procedures applied to civil servants and others concerning matters of national security. They are limited to checks which have a material bearing on the level of risk to the safety of these buildings and the people in them.
Third, I should stress that the checks made in the past took place immediately after the issue of a pass. This was no doubt for the convenience of Members, who understandably preferred a new employee to have a pass without delay.
However, the Services Committee did warn in its report of the problems that could arise from issuing passes before


checks had been carried out. In the paragraph referred to in the motion, it recommended that a short delay should be accepted between application for and issue of a photo pass. This delay would permit the police to carry out their check before a pass was issued. The Committee recommended that Members should abide by the results of any adverse, and necessarily confidential, report that might be made on a particular application on behalf of an employee.
The wisdom of that recommendation has been demonstrated by recent events. It is clearly far better for the checks to be carried out and any adverse result communicated privately to the Member concerned before a pass is issued.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the Leader of the House tell us exactly what are the criteria used to decide whether someone should or should not be given a pass? For example, there have been a good many young American students here, some of whom have worked for me. Were they checked to find out whether they were CIA agents? The same may apply to other people. What are those criteria?

Mr. Wakeham: The decision is made by Mr. Speaker, and the advice on which that decision is based is confidential. It is not for me to say—indeed, I do not know — what that advice is. It is for Mr. Speaker to decide whether he thinks that the applicant is a fit and proper person to have a pass and be allowed to come into the House.
I know nothing of the particular evidence on which the advice given to Mr. Speaker in individual cases is based. Those matters are, as the Committee noted, necessarily confidential. I have complete confidence in the responsibility and professionalism of the police, who are well aware of the significance of their conclusions in matters of such sensitivity.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Normally, I would not dissent from what the right hon. Gentleman said about the professionalism of the police. However, the question that bothers a number of us is how what purport to be confidential police files or security service files from time to time end up, by some alchemy, in the hands of newspaper reporters. Is that done on an authorised basis? Is it done with or without ministerial authority? I would hate to think that it was done with such authority. How does such very sensitive information, which could be extremely damaging to individuals, find its way into newspapers?

Mr. Wakeham: Most of the leaks that occur from Government and other sources seem designed to damage rather than to support the Government. Nevertheless, no leaks that I know of have been authorised by Ministers or by anyone else. I regret such leaks as much as anyone when individuals are affected, and, as I stated a moment ago, I believe that such matters should be kept confidential. It is much better for the House and for the individuals involved if that is so.
Fourth, and most important, I must emphasise one point on which I believe there should be no misunderstanding. There is no question of any interference on security grounds with a Member's right to employ whom he chooses as a secretary or research assistant. The hon. Member for Islington, North is free to go on

instructing the Fees Office to apply his office costs allowance to pay Mr. Ronan Bennett for his services out of public funds. What is at issue is prudent control over the privilege of free, unescorted access to these buildings. It is necessary to balance the proper desire of Members to have their staff on hand every working hour of every day, if necessary, with the need to keep the level of risk to themselves, their colleagues and others in these buildings to the lowest practicable level.
I turn now to the second limb of the motion, which invites the Services Committee to consider the wider implications. That brings me to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), which I am happy to support, In 1985, the Services Committee made a number of recommendations about the regulations governing research assistants with access to the House. These included a limit on the number of one particular category — temporary research assistants whom Members expected to employ for less than four months, to bring these more into balance with the capacity of the facilities of the House.
The capacity of these facilities is, as we all know, limited. The parliamentary building programme is proceeding and the Services Committee's New Building Sub-Committee, in the last Parliament, published a report on the whole programme. Phase 1 of the Bridge street project is still on track to be completed by the end of 1990. This will provide not only a much-needed increase in the accommodation for Members and secretaries but also new Library and refreshment facilities. It is, however, clear that for the foreseeable future we shall have to contend with limited space and facilities for Members and their staff, working in a historic building that is designed for the needs of an earlier age.
The number of research assistants in particular continues to cause concern to right hon. and hon. Members. In the report referred to in the motion, the Committee made clear its own concern at the rate of increase in the number of research assistants. It asked for regular reviews of the situation to be carried out. I recognise the pressure for a further look at this stage, and I look forward to hearing the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, if he should be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, later in the debate.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as I represent the largest constituency in the House, with over 100,000 constituents, my parliamentary allowance is fully used up for secretarial purposes and that there are many hon. Members who believe that the employment of research assistants strikes at the heart of parliamentary democracy? Is it not time to banish political parasites from the House of Commons and to expect hon. Members to do their own research, which lies at the very heart of British democracy in this House?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot go quite so far as my hon. Friend. I have never employed a research assistant, but I am sure that my hon. Friend could make his views known to the Services Committee, which would consider them. together with any other representations that he may wish to make.
It would also be open to the Services Committee, in the course of such a review, to consider the representations that hon. Members may wish to make, whether on security


grounds or otherwise, about other categories of people who have access to the House, on whatever terms. I am sure that the Committee will take note of any points that hon. Members raise in the debate, or with the Committee direct.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is there not another aspect of this matter that the right hon. Gentleman has not touched on concerning so-called research assistants? He knows that there has been a large influx of this type of personality into the House and that some of us who have experienced their services have been rather less than happy with what they have offered and with what they have accomplished. A very serious problem that has not been raised in this regard is, how on earth can there be proper security vetting of the large number of people who are foreigners and whose background it is very difficult for the local police or anyone else to check?

Mr. Wakeham: That is a relevant question for the Services Committee when it is considering the recommendations that it will make on the number of research assistants the House should allow to be employed and the steps that should be taken to check on them.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that for hon. Members, who work very hard, the use of research assistants to dig out facts and information is not only a positive benefit to our constituents but of great assistance to those of us who use their services for their intended purpose?

Mr. Wakeham: I would happily agree with the hon. Lady, unless by so doing I was being critical of her hon. Friend, who after his unfortunate experience some little while ago has managed quite well without research assistants.
I come now to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I recognise that it has been drafted in a responsible spirit. None the less, parts of its analysis and prescription are flawed, and I shall therefore ask the House to reject it. First, the arrangements for the security of the House are perfectly clear. Control is vested personally in the Speaker on behalf of the House. Secondly, judgments on security in the House are in the hands not of a branch of the Government but of the Speaker, who seeks advice as necessary from hon. Members, the Serjeant at Arms and the Metropolitain police.
The Opposition amendment calls for consideration by the Privileges and Services Committees. I remind the House that the Government motion provides for wider implications to be considered by the Services Committee, which should meet the point of that part of the Opposition motion. With regard to privilege, the House is sovereign in such matters, and I believe that it will see no basis for referring the issue before us today to the Privileges Committee for its advice.
I note that the amendment calls for the procedures permitting evaluation by the House of information furnished by the Metropolitan police. This point was made by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). I should tell the House — this point is where we may differ, so I shall choose my words carefully—that this information is likely to be of a nature that cannot be

disclosed. But the main point, I repeat, is that the Speaker rightly has personal responsibility for our security, and it would be wrong for the House to overrule his judgment without calling into question the whole structure, or which I am quite clear is, although not perfect, better than the alternative that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has in mind.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Stanley Orme: The point about the disclosure of information is crucial. Hon. Members are entitled to know where the information came from and the basis for it. The House will hear from the Metropolitan police, but not from MI5 or MI6 unless the information is provided to the Privileges Committee or to hon. Members. That point is central to this issue.

Mr. Wakeham: In matters of security, the police should give confidential advice and their opinion to Mr. Speaker; he can then make a judgment on that advice. I do not believe that it is possible to reveal details of confidential security advice without damaging the security of the nation in an unacceptable way.

Ms. Clare Short: As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is the nub of the issue. It is perfectly possible for false allegations to be made about somebody. In the system that the right hon. Gentleman is advocating there is no way in which a false allegation can be checked, which is intolerable. I sincerely ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that point. If someone's character can be blackened, the hon. Member concerned can have his character blackened. The allegation may be false, but there is no way in which it could be checked.

Mr. Wakeham: I have already said that these matters should be confidential. Therefore, there should not be any need for any public disclosure of an adverse report. Our security system requires confidential advice from the appropriate authorities to be given to the Speaker. It is not possible for such confidential advice to be referred to a Committee of Privy Councillors or any other Committee of the House. The advice must be confidential and given to the appropriate person.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House confirm that not one Member of the House, including Mr. Speaker, knows the details of the allegations made against this gentleman?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not in a position to confirm or deny it—I do not know.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer the question.

Mr. Wakeham: I will answer the question if the hon. Gentleman will keep quiet. I do not know the details of the allegations that have been made, and I am unaware of anyone else having details of it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to answer his question, he must shut up for a minute and I will do my best to answer it. I have no knowledge of this information. It is a matter of security, it is a matter for the Speaker and not for me.

Mr. Ron Leighton: This is an extremely important point because the right hon. Gentleman has said that he does not know any of these


details. On a previous occasion Mr. Speaker has told us that he does not know any of these details. That is the curious position that we are in; nobody seems to know any of the details. Is that satisfactory?

Mr. Wakeham: We cannot run a security system unless the police and other authorities are trusted to bring forward confidential information on which the responsible person—in this case, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that you do not know the details of these allegations?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is for the House to debate. I have nothing to add to what I have said earlier on this matter.

Mr. Wakeham: I am also asking for the amendment of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield to be rejected. The right hon. Gentleman has a remarkable capacity for setting himself up as a defender of fundamental principles. Democracy, human rights — even the pure essence of Socialism — have all been the doubtful beneficiaries of his protection. On one matter I can agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The issue that lies behind today's debate is one of democracy and one that touches on the rights and privileges of the House and its Members.
The right hon. Gentleman takes the view that hon. Members should have unfettered right to confer free access to the precincts of the House on whomsoever they wish. It is my belief that hon. Members on both sides of the House, proud and jealous though we be of the privileges that we enjoy, do accept that those privileges carry with them responsibilities. The House rightly accepts a limitation on its right to free speech where cases are sub judice. For example, you, Mr. Speaker, have warned us against the abuse of that privilege in making allegations against private citizens.
In the difficult area that is the subject of today's debate, the House has placed its trust in you, Mr. Speaker by giving you discretion in this matter, bearing in mind your personal responsibility for security in the precincts of this part of the Palace of Westminster. That trust and discretion was vested in you when you were elected to the Chair by the democratic decision of the House. In accordance with that decision, you acted on advice in the interests of the security of all of us. You have the authority to make that decision.
I ask the House to support the motion and in so doing to express its confidence not only in you, Sir, but in its own democratic procedures.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to ask you whether the remarks made by the Leader of the House about your personal responsibility were cleared with you before he made them?

Mr. Speaker: No speech in this place is cleared with the Chair. I am here to ensure that speeches are in order. The speech made by the Leader of the House was in order.

Mr. Frank Dobson: We must address many difficult issues, but the central question that we must try to answer relates to how a society which prides itself on being open and democratic responds to terrorism, the threat of terrorism and the fear of terrorism. Everyone

must acknowledge that the existence of terrorism poses a threat to the safety of this building, the people in it, and Members of Parliament, when here and outside.
Two terrorist explosions have shaken these premises in modern times; the bomb in Westminster Hall in 1974 and the device that killed Airey Neave in 1979. Since then, Robert Bradford has been shot dead at his advice surgery, and Anthony Berry has been killed in the Brighton bombing. In the explosion at the Grand hotel, the Leader of the House was seriously injured and his beloved wife was killed. The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was also seriously injured and his wife was cruelly maimed. Other hon. Members were hurt in the devastation at the hotel. Members of the Conservative party who were going about their political business were killed or injured.
Everybody in the House has the utmost sympathy for the victims of violence and their relatives and friends. Many hon. Members of all parties represent constituents and even whole constituencies that have suffered grievously at the hands of terrorists. Those experiences deeply colour the views and responses of many hon. Members — indeed, all hon. Members. That is one reason why everyone in the House recognises the reality of terrorism.
Everyone has a duty to prevent terrorists from securing their objectives, but it is from the desire to deny terrorists their objectives that our democratic dilemma stems. Assassination or arson may be the immediate object of a terrorist attack, but that is not the end of the story. The death or destruction that is directly caused by a terrorist is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end. Terrorists wish to bring about a reaction from those in authority, which reduces the openness of our society, undermines our democratic values and casts doubt on our judicial processes. They also seek a form of prestige — the prestige of being acknowledged to be a dangerous threat to the rest of us.
We must bear terrorists' objectives in mind when deciding how to try to maintain the safety of the House and hon. Members. Whatever steps we take which may add a measure of safety will certainly curtail the arrangements and conventions that we treasure or used to treasure.
If hon. Members consider the changes that have been made in the House—most hon. Members on both sides do not like those changes, but they have been adopted to make terrorists' tasks more difficult—they will see what I mean. I refer to identity cards—never popular in this country—the examination of baggage, visitors being put through metal detectors and explosive sniffers, the examination of vehicles before they enter the House, and the installation of green mesh security fencing, which would look more appropriate around a prison or an Army than around the ancient democratic House of Commons. Such measures may make it harder for terrorists to blow us up, but we can be certain that all of them have been chalked up by the IRA as symbols of how afraid it has made us. To us, such safety measures are a sign of our watchfulness. To the IRA and its friends the same measures are a sign of our fearfulness.
There may be many people whose personalities lead them to take delight in being protected by the sort of measures that I have mentioned, but I am sure that delighting in security measures is not the right response in a democracy. We all know how non-democratic Governments respond. They counter terror with terror.


Sometimes, we hear people say, with a touch of envy, "At least regimes like that know how to deal with terrorists. They have no inhibitions and consequently appear to have fewer problems." Because of our democratic instincts and institutions, we have more inhibitions and, consequently, more problems, but it is worth reflecting that, although many dictatorships have been undermined and have fallen as a result of terrorist methods in recent times, no democracy has fallen to terrorists.
The strengths of democracies may be less apparent, but they are deeper and more lasting. We do best when we err on the side of caution in our response to terrorists. Most of us still prefer not to have generally armed police on the streets. Most of us are pleased that our Head of State and her family take some risks so that they can meet the people rather than be driven everywhere in closed bullet-proof limousines. Their behaviour is all the more admirable in view of their own direct bitter experience of the ruthless murder of Lord Mountbatten and some of his family.
Hon. Members may think that this is a little above and beyond a discussion about whether to vet the people whom hon. Members choose to work for them as research assistants and secretaries, but I remind the House that all changes in and erosions of our usual arrangements come in tiny increments. No one proudly announces that we have just decided to dispense with a treasured aspect of our open society. Democratic practices drift into decay. Their departure is seldom signalled by those who make the decisions or even recognised by those on whose behalf the decisions are supposedly made.
Most people accept some vetting of some people as a necessary evil, hut, however necessary vetting may be, I submit that it remains an evil. Vetting is ultimately authoritarian and counter-democratic. I do not seek to join any artificial dispute with Conservative Members. I am being careful and am not exaggerating when I say that. One of the basic concepts of democracy is that those in authority must account to the people for their actions. Vetting stands that concept on its head and requires the people to account to those in authority for their actions.
I must confess that, when recent events made it necessary for me in my new job to find out about the security arrangements for hon. Members and the people who work in the House and how such arrangements have developed, each succeeding piece of information was generally more surprising than its predecessor. Most surprising of all was the fact that the security of the House has never been discussed at any length in modern times, least of all by the House itself. Arrangements have just grown up, and the process, although not secret, has not been open.
We have ended up with arrangements that have received little or no overt authority from the House, put you, Mr. Speaker, in an invidious position, leave security decisions in the hands of a branch of Government, and can undermine the civil liberties of individuals by providing no redress for any person accused of being a threat to the security of the House.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Does the hon. Gentleman concede that effective security depends in large measure on those who might breach it without knowing its arrangements? There is a real difficulty in following the path that the hon. Gentleman wishes us to follow by

saying that we should be open about our security. Does he recognise the inherent contradiction in that aspect of his argument?

Mr. Dobson: I have tried to make it clear throughout that there is an inherent dilemma — an inherent contradiction—in any open democracy which tries to deal with terrorism. Opposition Members do not advocate that every measure that is taken in an effort to make this place safer should be disclosed to possible enemies of democracy. We do not suggest that the location and operation of devices such as television cameras should be disclosed. However, other aspects of our security system would benefit from proper evaluation by the House and I shall suggest some of them later.

Mr. Clive Soley: Does my hon. Friend agree that an additional argument is that a number of the other democratic countries that have faced terrorist threats have structures that are much more open and democratic than ours but those countries have not been trapped into the dangerous degree of secrecy in which this country has become involved at times?

Mr. Dobson: I agree with my hon. Friend, although if we consider the spectrum of democracies and the way in which Parliaments conduct themselves, we find that some are much more fortress-like than our own while others are rather more open.
As the Leader of the House said, we now know that all the staff of the House are vetted before they are appointed and that all research assistants and secretaries are vetted after they are appointed. That practice began in the 1970s and was made more systematic with the aid of a computer in 1982. However, the arrangements were not thought through. Recent events have revealed that no procedure was established to deal with circumstances in which the security services advised that they thought that someone was a security risk. That is rather like having an emergency procedure that works well except when there is an emergency. The House may feel that the time has come for more formal and accountable arrangements.
I come now to the question of Mr. Ronan Bennett who was apponted as a research assistant by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in August this year. He was duly issued with a photo pass and filled in his declaration of interest form. Then, with great publicity, he was fingered by the security services. The event raises a number of important issues that affect us all.
Twelve years ago, Mr. Bennett was convicted by a single-judge Northern Ireland court of the murder of a Royal Ulster Constabulary inspector. Thirteen months later, he was freed when the Appeal Court quashed the conviction. Two years after that he was arrested in Yorkshire by the special branch and served with an exclusion order under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. After two weeks, the order was quashed. In 1979, Mr. Bennett was charged with conspiracy to rob, and found not guilty at the Old Bailey.
In short, the highest courts which have considered accusations against Mr. Bennett have set him free. He has not been found guilty of any offence. Under the laws of this country he is innocent of the crimes with which he was charged.
People are innocent until found guilty. If found not guilty, they are innocent. That fundamental point is a vital thread in the very fabric of our society and has been a


point of pride for the people of this country for hundreds of years. It is a vital part of the rule of law which should not be ignored or set aside by any man or woman or any branch of government, still less challenged in this freely elected democratic House of Commons. It is one of the basic liberties which it is the duty of all of us to uphold.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is the hon. Gentleman really telling the House that only a person who has been convicted of a crime in the courts in this country or elsewhere can be considered a threat to the security of this place?

Mr. Dobson: Had the hon. Gentleman waited but a moment he would have heard what I have to say about that. In deference to the hon. Gentleman I say that I know that matters are more complicated. The fact that one has been found not guilty cannot prove that one is not a security risk. However, if the only thing that the security services have against Mr. Bennett is the record that I have just related, Opposition Members do not believe that it can or should be used to justify excluding Mr. Bennett. It could be—I say "could" because I do not know; like all hon. Members I have no evidence—that Mr. Bennett is a security risk. He could be using his access to these buildings to put our safety at risk. However, until evidence to that effect is provided Opposition Members are not prepared to support his permanent exclusion on the basis of his known record.
The motion asks us to endorse the application of a recommendation of the Services Committee made in January 1985. I am afraid that I cannot invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it. The recommendation was patently not applied in Mr. Ronan Bennett's case. One crucial aspect of the recommendation—included by the Committee in an effort, no doubt, to add an element of equity — was that an hon. Member whose would-be researcher or secretary was the subject of an adverse and confidential report on his or her security status should be told and that the hon. Member should be given the opportunity to decide whether to accept the advice or make representations.
In the case of Mr. Ronan Bennett, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North was neither informed in confidence nor given an opportunity to consider what to do next. Even more extraordinary is the fact that the News of the World was informed in confidence so that the first that my hon. Friend heard of the security services' objection to Mr. Bennett's having a pass was when he was told by a News of the World reporter, who claimed that the security services' information had been made available to him. That is quite unacceptable.
I must ask you, Mr. Speaker, together with the Lord Chancellor, who shares your responsibilities——

Mr. Rupert Allason: rose——

Mr. Dobson: I would like to finish this point. After that, I may give way to the hon. Gentleman or I may not.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, together with the Lord Chancellor, who shares your responsibility for the safety of the Palace of Westminster, to undertake an inquiry into the identity of the person who passed the information to the News of the World. If, between you, you do not have the resources to conduct such an inquiry, I must ask the Prime Minister, as head of the security services, to institute an inquiry into the leak, to report promptly and frankly

to the House on its findings and to dismiss the person responsible from the public service. The Prime Minister has justified the legal actions relating to the book "Spycatcher" on the ground that its author was bound for ever by his oath of secrecy. The person who leaked the information about Ronan Bennett to the News of the World was bound by the same obligation of perpetual secrecy. Surely that obligation is all-embracing. It cannot be dispensed with just because it suits someone to dispense with it.
The leak to the News of the World raises a number of questions, not least whether some of those involved were more concerned with lining their pockets or getting bad publicity for a particular hon. Member belonging to a particular party than with the security and safety of the House.

Mr. Allason: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a curious contradiction in his argument? At one moment he expects everyone automatically to agree that evidence offered in court should not be disclosed, while at the next he says that if an individual is refused access to the House on the basis of confidential information that information should be disclosed. Surely information supplied to Mr. Speaker by the security services, the police or any other agency is supplied on the basis that it will remain confidential. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that if such information is disclosed it is likely to put lives at risk?

Mr. Dobson: It is a general requirement in our courts—particularly the criminal courts—that evidence should be pleaded in public, and most people think that that is a good thing. We recognise that it is not necessarily of benefit for information from the security services to be widely spread, despite the efforts of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) from time to time.
I believe that if the House chose—and it would be the House which chose—the members of a committee to have access to confidential information of that nature, we should have sufficient faith in the people we chose to be sure that the information would remain confidential. That is what I would hope.
There are other objections to the Government's motion——

Mr. Faulds: There is another aspect of this matter that my hon. Friend has not touched upon. In view of Mr. Bennett's known record, is it not less surprising that the security services fingered him than that a Member of Parliament appointed him?

Mr. Dobson: I do not wish to bandy curiosities with my hon. Friend, but there is a further curiosity : that is to suggest that an organisation, even one as inept as the IRA, would select Mr. Ronan Bennett as a secret agent.
There are other objections to the Government's motion that I hope are made clear in our amendment. First, we believe that responsibility for the safety of the House and those who work in it must be left to the informed decisions of the House itself. A freely elected Parliament is clearly not properly discharging its duties if it becomes dependent on the unsubstantiated assertions of any branch of the Executive. When those assertions affect the privileges of the House and the rights of individual hon. Members it is imperative that they should be subjected to the informed scrutiny of the House. That is not a point of parliamentary


self-importance but literally a point of parliamentary rights. The sovereignty of Parliament is basic to the rule of law and we must have total sovereignty over our own affairs.
It is also our view that the physical safety of hon. Members and others working in the Palace of Westminster should be the only consideration in the scrutiny or vetting of any person concerned with this place. Assessments of the political suitability of someone seeking access to this place must be left to the electorate alone.

Ms. Short: Is it not a fact that one of the problems is that many of us do not trust the judgment of the special branch? For example, there was the case of Madeleine Haig in Sutton Coldfield who simply wrote a letter to a local newspaper saying that she supported nuclear disarmament. She was checked out by the special branch. Her Member of Parliament, a member of the Cabinet, was lied to about that check. When we know that the special branch is making misjudgments of that sort we need a system to check the basis of its vetting.

Mr. Dobson: I agree with my hon. Friend. However, the fact that we must require information from the security services to maintain our position as a free Parliament would apply even to those hon. Members who have absolute faith in the accuracy of anything that the security services do. It is a matter not of practicality but of principle.
I believe that the Leader of the House accepts that there can be no suggestion that hon. Members cannot employ who they wish. That must be a question for individual hon. Members. I agree that we must all recognise the fact of life that the access that researchers or secretaries have to the House means that their action could have an impact on the safety of others working there. Therefore, I believe that rules governing the appointment of people with access to this place are a proper matter for the whole House and cannot be left to each individual hon. Member. We have a duty one to another.
If any vetting procedure is operated——

Mr. Heffer: Is not it clear that if somebody intends to come into the House deliberately to plant a bomb and becomes a research assistant or a member of the staff he would never say who or what he was? It would be like Willy Brandt's secretary, who was an agent for East Germany. Herr Brandt did not know that he was an agent and neither did anybody else, except the individual concerned. On that basis, if people are serious about coming here they will do it without us, the security services or anyone else. Therefore, the people who come as research assistants and in other jobs and tell us who they are have a right to be employed, as long as we are satisfied.

Mr. Dobson: I agree with my hon. Friend because he said "as long as we are satisfied." I take the view that it is a matter of the House laying down rules as a freely elected assembly and that those rules must apply to any aspect of the conduct of the House that could have an adverse effect on other hon. Members. Whatever doubts people may have about vetting processes, which as we all know are notoriously slipshod and unsatisfactory——

Mr. Cranky Onslow: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. From what he said

prevously, I assume that he does not intend that issues involving a dispute about the security rating of an individual should be debated by the House in the open. However, would he tell us what body of the House should have the delegated responsibility for considering such matters?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman will find that my logic appears to tally with his. I am coming to that point.
If a vetting procedure is operated and the Metropolitan police make an adverse report on someone that an hon. Member wishes to appoint, they should make a confidential report to the hon. Member concerned. If, on the basis of that report, the hon. Member decides not to proceed with the appointment, that should be the end of the matter. However, if the hon. Member is not satisfied, he or she should be able to appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, and you should determine that appeal after seeking the advice of a specially established Committee of the House, to which the police would have to produce evidence to justify their adverse report. We recognise that that might pose problems for the police, but it is the least that could be expected of a Committee of the House advising on the rights of an individual hon. Member and who should have access to this place.
There are alternatives to vetting. For example, the European Assembly requires everyone, including Members and staff, to pass through metal detectors and baggage examination at the entrance every time they enter the building. That approach to security may be more or less acceptable to hon. Members, but it would be valuable for the Services Committee to look into the advantages and disadvantages of various alternative approaches so that the House could make an informed judgment.
The major part of our concern for safety must be for those working in the House, bearing in mind that the 1974 bomb exploded in a staff canteen and that such threats as letter bombs would be likely to do more harm to staff than to hon. Members. At present, all those working in the House, including the people in the Press Gallery, are vetted. I believe that whatever security measures are taken should he discussed with the representatives of the people concerned, including the representatives of the people in the Press Gallery. If any vetting procedure is operated for all those working here, there should be appropriate machinery to enable persons affected to appeal. In no case can it be acceptable for people to be rejected anonymously by the security services. We have to look to the safety and civil liberty of all the people working here, just as in all our deliberations we have to look to the safety and civil liberty of our people.
In short, we do not think that endorsing the January 1985 recommendation of the Services Committee is an adequate response. After all, the Committee's recommendation formed but one paragraph out of 28 in a report on the overcrowding problems caused by an upsurge in the number of researchers. The report was never discussed by the House. Given everyone's doubts—I mean everyone's — about retrospective legislation, it would be unfortunate to give retrospective approval to a matter affecting the rights and privileges of the House and individual hon. Members.
However, we wish most earnestly to see this matter given, for the first time, the thorough and informed scrutiny that it deserves. That is why we recommend that the matters of principle should be referred to the Privileges


Committee and the practicalities to the Services Committee to ensure the maximum physical safety for hon. Members and others who work in the Palace of Westminster, compatible with the need to preserve the rights of hon. Members, and free access to this free House of Commons.
The safety of this place and of the people in it is a matter for us and for us alone. It must not be a matter for the Executive arm. still less for the security services. Our proposal would bring the matter back within the authority of the House and maintain the rights and privileges that are necessary to a free Parliament.
However, as the Leader of the House said, with those rights go duties. We have a duty to all the people who work for the House or for individual hon. Members. We have a duty to ourselves and to one another. We have a duty to secure the safety of the House because it is a symbol of our democracy, and its injury would cause rejoicing among the enemies of democracy. We have a duty to frustrate the intentions of terrorists. We can help to discharge that duty by ensuring that the House is not a soft target. However, we can best discharge that duty if, at the same time, we have the courage and confidence to accept some risks in maintaining the open institution and practices of our democracy, for whose preservation thousands of our people, of all political persuasions, have laid down their lives in wars against the enemies of democracy. We must stick up for democracy; we must make ourselves safe. But we must also maintain our ancient liberties.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: This is an important debate, but it is not about the freedom of Members of Parliament to speak, to vote, to enter this Chamber, or to conduct their activities in Committees. The debate is about only one thing—the control of the issue of passes to persons who are employed not by the House but by individual hon. Members who wish that employee not only to be employed by them, but to have uncontrolled access to the precincts of the House.
If the proposition were that the Government or the security forces should have the right to decide who should or should not be issued with such a pass, I should be among those hon. Members who would say no to it. The House of Commons must trust somebody, but the question is whom it should trust. There was a time when the office of Speaker was used as a depository for unsuccessful Ministers. It was regarded as being in the gift of the Government as a reward for political service in the Cabinet. I am happy to say that Back Benchers, not Front Benchers, have ensured that that is no longer the case. Back-Bench Members have reasserted—not before time—the right—they always had the power—to choose as their Speaker the Member in whom they reposed their trust, rather than to acquiesce in the desire of the Government of the day to reward one of their faithful servants with the office of Speaker. It is entirely within the power of the House to preserve that reality, and the House will neglect it or allow it to fall into desuetude at its peril.
As we are conducting this debate in the circumstances that I have described, and as all hon. Members agree that the matter is important, my answer to the question, "In whom should the House repose its trust?" is, "In its elected Speaker." He carries that heavy responsibility and it is one from which he can never escape while he is Speaker of this

House. Indeed, there are other responsibilities from which he can never escape while Speaker. The consequences of his decisions will continue after he has ceased to be Speaker of this House.
As we have been reminded, it took Parliament and the House of Commons many generations to establish certain important phenomena. The independence of the office of Speaker was historically late in coming. That independence did not always exist, although, as I have pointed out, the recovery of the right of Back-Bench Members to choose whomsoever they believe fit to occupy that office has been recent.
In exercising that onerous duty, I have no doubt that Mr. Speaker would come to the House if questions that he wished to ask were not answered. It is inconceivable that he would not do so.

Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes, but I must finish this line of argument before doing so.
If Mr. Speaker is to get at the truth in matters of security, it is necessary that the source of his information that satisfies him in that unique performance of a duty to the House, cannot be publicly revealed or questioned. Similarly, there have been many decisions by previous Speakers over the years that the House has come to accept as decisions that must not be challenged. The House can have redress by putting down a motion of censure if it disagrees with his decisions or actions. However, there are certain decisions and responsibilities, including the processes that lead up to the decisions, that are not open to question by the House while the House reposes its confidence in him as Speaker.

Mr. Winnick: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument, but surely that places Mr. Speaker in a difficult and invidious position? If Mr. Speaker is given the total authority to decide, on the basis of information that was presumably given by the security authorities, there would he no right of appeal. It is most unlikely that Mr. Speaker would be in a position, or would wish to he in a position, to speak to the House on that issue. Therefore, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, the only course would be the unfortunate one of a censure motion on Mr. Speaker. What is wrong with having an appeals machinery along the lines that were set out in the amendment that was tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I agree that Mr. Speaker is in a difficult position in this matter. But he is in a difficult position on many matters that fall to him for decision. The fact that a question is difficult does not mean that it will go away. The fact that it is so crucially difficult is the nub of this debate. Experience of the past 25 years has not satisfied hon. Members on both sides of the House that Committees are leak-proof. We all know that they are not. However hard we try to preserve confidentiality in Select Committees on certain issues, we know that it is an imperfect system. In most matters it is not a question of life and death if there is a leak, although there may be ill consequences. In security matters, however, it can be exactly that. That is why confidentiality becomes more important when sources of information are revealed, and the source of the information is at risk of assassination.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point, which is not that it is a difficult decision for Mr. Speaker


—we all accept that—but that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends are asking Mr. Speaker to take responsibility with what is at best inadequate knowledge.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I have no reason to suppose that the basis upon which Mr. Speaker would take such a decision is any more inadequate than if the responsibility were shared by three other hon. Members. There is nothing inherent in numbers that produces accuracy. At the end of the day, where should the responsibility reside? It resides either with Mr. Speaker, or with a Committee. Since the matter was first raised I have given it considerable thought and my opinion is that the best, though not the perfect, solution would be to entrust this decision, so that it is taken as impartially as possible though not infallibly, to the person to whom, above all others, we entrust so many crucial decisions. That is Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Tony Benn: The House is aware that we are having this debate on the morrow of the horrific killings at Enniskillen. The debate was opened by the Leader of the House who has suffered personally, as his wife was the victim of an earlier murder, and it takes place in a Chamber which has lost two hon. Members and has been the subject of attack in the past. We must also consider that we are responsible for the safety of all people who work here all the time, whether or not they are hon. Members. Those facts are bound to be in the forefront of today's debate.
I am all the more grateful to you. Mr. Speaker, for selecting amendment (a), in line 1, leave out from 'House' to end and add:
'rejects the recommendation in the Second Report of the Services Committee, Session 1984–85, on security, on the grounds that it would infringe the principles of Parliamentary democracy, under which electors must have the right to elect the Members whom they choose, and honourable Members must have an equal right to employ whoever they wish to assist them with their Parliamentary duties; knows of no powers that this House has, has ever had, or could legitimately, take or assume, to determine who may work for an honourable Member in the Palace of Westminster; believes that the withdrawal of the pass issued to Mr. Ronan Bennett has publicly, and unjustly, identified him as a potential threat to national security, without any evidence having been disclosed, or any hearing or trial, whereby he, personally, has suffered a serious injury; warns that, if the security services are permitted to vet any person, including staff, lobby correspondents, or honourable Members, and effectively veto them, fundamental civil and democratic liberties will be eroded to the point where those affected would become licensed by the Crown, its ministers and servants, thus reversing centuries of struggle by the people of the United Kingdom through this House to gain control of the Executive, and hold it accountable for its actions; and therefore demands the immediate restoration of the pass to Mr. Ronan Bennett, and the complete discontinuation of the present, and wholly unauthorised, practice of vetting those who work in, and for, this House and its Members'.
It is necessary now, more than at almost any other time, to reaffirm the freedom of individuals and the rights of hon. Members and those who elect them.
A great deal has been said about confidentiality and the need to preserve it. Anyone who has read Mr. Peter Wright's book will know that:
Facsimile copies of some files were made and distributed to overseas newspapers, and the matter was to be raised in Parliament to maximum effect.

When it comes to security, the greatest leakers in the country are the security services. There have been journalists who have made a living by being the recipients of the views of dissatisfied security officers, especially when those officers have not got their way with Ministers.
How did the House imagine the first account of Mr. Ronan Bennett appeared in two newspapers owned by the same proprietor on 6 September? They were put there by somebody in the security services who wished to have the effect that he or she must now manifestly feel has been satisfied by subsequent events.
You, Mr. Speaker, exercising the responsibilities that have been referred to by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), withdrew the pass from Mr. Bennett and acted in a way that you no doubt regarded as right. If I understand your answer, Mr. Speaker, on 5 November you said:
That evidence was not seen." — [Official Report, 5 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 1080.]
I take that to mean that you did not think it right or proper, or did not choose, to see the full report from the security services. If I am wrong I hope that I will be corrected. I presume that you were advised, Mr. Speaker, of its import by your principal adviser, the Serjeant at Arms, who is not an elected person or a servant of the House as a whole in that respect.
My fear and the reason why my hon. Friends and I tabled this amendment is that your decision, Mr. Speaker, identified Mr. Bennett as a security threat without giving him, or my hon. Friend, the opportunity of defence or providing any independent assessment of evidence in accordance with the most basic principles of British law, upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) touched so convincingly.
Mr. Bennett is now completely unemployable and, unless we decide otherwise today, the House will share the responsibility for the decision to make him unemployable, also without seeing any of the evidence whatever—not one Member of the House has seen any of the evidence. I believe that our amendment for the restoration of Mr. Bennett's pass would be fully justified by any objective test of justice and fair play for that, if not for any other reason.
The issue raised by this case goes far beyond the position of Mr. Bennett. It touches upon the right of electors to choose whom they want to represent them in the House and upon the right of Members, once elected, to select those they wish to work for them in this place. It is not for the majority in this House to determine what minorities may do, because when the tables are turned I can visualise circumstances when Conservative Members might be the first to resist the application of the principle that they now so loquaciously uphold.

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose——

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: rose——

Mr. Benn: I shall give way when I have finished this point.
It so happens that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) employed Mr. Bennett in part to assist him in establishing the innocence of the Guildford four. The question of the Birmingham six is now, at the instance of the Home Secretary, before the Court of Appeal. Those people were convicted on the morrow of the Birmingham bombing, when the attachment to impartiality and the application of justice, as the court may hear, may be the hardest to sustain.

Mr. Greenway: rose——

Mr. Benn: I wish to finish before I give way.
The question that I must ask myself—I am bound to—is would the security services, which no doubt played some part in bringing about the prosecution and conviction of the Guildford four, be pleased that the hon. Member for Islington, North had a person assisting him who was engaged in trying to show that they were wrong? There are obvious motives in this as well.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am cautious of interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but can he tell the House whether there are any circumstances in which he feels people should not be allowed to be employed in the House by a Member of Parliament? Is he saying that there should be a carte blanche? Nobody is saying that a Member of Parliament cannot employ an individual, but what is being said is that a Member of Parliament must have recourse to information, information that came before Mr. Speaker in this case, as to whether that individual can work on the premises.

Mr. Benn: The principle is straightforward. If an individual seeks a Civil Service appointment the Government, as the employer, can apply what restrictions or vetting they wish. If a Member of Parliament decides to employ somebody, he or she is entitled to employ whomsoever they wish, so long as that person is not disqualified by law or any conviction.

Mr. Greenway: rose——

Mr. Benn: I shall not give way again.
I know of no law in Britain, no Standing Order of this House and no precedent in parliamentary history that empowers the House or the Speaker to lay down who is to work for an elected Member. There is no authority whatever for the decision that led to the withdrawal of Mr. Bennett's pass. Indeed, I might add that the informal advisory committee set up more than 10 years ago—I remember it very well because I was a member of the Cabinet at the time—to examine and report upon the Starritt report on the physical safety and security of the Palace and to which you referred, Mr. Speaker, has never been formally approved or its members elected by the House. Therefore, it carries no authority, and it is not even clear whether it played a role in the Bennett case. Even the recommendation in paragraph 23 of the Services Committee report 1984–85, which we are invited to endorse, has never been accepted by the House, nor does it have any bearing on this case, because even if the motion is carried the ban on Mr. Bennett was not applied according to the procedure that the Services Committee recommended.
In this case the basis of the ban came from the Crown and its servants in the form of the security services. The information that those services receive is not normally available even to the Home Secretary. If the House looks at the Maxwell-Fyfe directive of 24 September 1952 it is laid down clearly that the Home Secretary does not expect to be informed. Therefore, we are not dealing with the Executive in its accountable form through Ministers, but in its wholly unaccountable form through the security services.

Mr. Barry Porter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: I will not give way at the moment.
There is not even the most tenuous link of accountability to this House, through a Minister, for the security services and what they do. Questions about the security services are not allowed to be tabled or are disallowed by you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Barry Porter: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time to address himself to what I consider to be the impeccable logic of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) in respect of the ultimate authority and responsibility of Mr. Speaker to take what advice he can and from where? Surely that must be right. The House of Commons must, in the end, give authority and respect to some individual or body. I believe that my hon. Friend has put forward arguments to which the right hon. Gentleman has not addressed his mind.

Mr. Benn: As a matter of fact, I am glad that the hon. Member for Tiverton raised the 17th century question because Mr. Speaker Lenthall, whom I have often quoted. in this House, said:
May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.
The House has never directed the Speaker to take away the right of a Member to choose his servant, so the Lenthall case works my way. What has happened now is that the Crown, in the person of the security services, has come, not to arrest the five Members, but to arrest one research assistant. I believe that Mr. Speaker did not respond in a manner that I believe that the House might, on reflection, think would have been best.
The House does not know for certain what is the definition of a security risk. The only one I know is contained in Lords Hansard of 26 February 1975 in column 947 when Lord Harris of Greenwich gave a description that covered almost anything. Essentially the definition of what is a security risk is political, for everything else is criminal. If a person is guilty of an act contrary to the laws of the state he can be brought to the courts by prosecution. A security risk is someone who cannot be brought to the courts, but who is politically unacceptable.
Anyone who has had any experience of the security services as a Minister knows full well that the security services take a highly, almost totally, political view of what is a security risk. For example, when I was Minister of Technology I acquired the vetting responsibility of the old Ministry of Supply over officials in Whitehall and I saw some of the files. Later, as Secretary of State for Industry, I was told that Jack Jones, who was then the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, was considered a security risk. I was told that Hugh Scanlon, who was then president of the AEU, was considered a security risk. We know from Cathy Massiter that people who favoured a non-nuclear defence policy are considered a security risk. The Government are still fighting to prevent such people, even when hon. Members, from being able to question Ministry of Defence officials. The most ludicrous example is that of Mr. Peter Wright, who said that when he was with the service the Prime Minister of the day was considered a Soviet agent. Is any hon. Member going to tell me that that was not a political decision? Trade unionists, activists in the Labour movement and those who campaign for peace are


considered security risks in the minds of those who work in the security services. That is the background against which we have to look for understanding.
If we endorse the vetting of research assistants, we are endorsing the vetting of Members. It is an absolute, manifest, principle of vetting that, to get an adequate response on vetting, one has to contact or observe the relations between the person one is watching and that person's closest associates. Who could be closer to a research assistant than the Member who has employed him? If the House does not challenge that, we shall be authorising the interception of Members' letters and telephone calls, making elected Members' staff and lobby correspondents, who, through their union as well as individually, have an interest, into persons "licensed" by the Crown before they can perform their duties. That argument was developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.
The use of the term "security" can be extended to cover almost anything about the Government of the day, whichever party is in government. This works both ways and, although it may seem strange, I am defending the rights of future minorities in the House against future majorities—forming a Government who might wish to deny matters to be discussed.
For example, it was on security grounds that the Zircon film was banned and the BBC raided. It was essentially on security grounds that Peter Wright's book, in which he alleged illegalities on a massive scale, was suppressed by the High Court. It was by the use of the sub judice rule that the House was prevented from even discussing it. Security prevents Members from asking questions about GCHQ or the security services. Even though some of the books being asked about were written by Members of the House, they cannot be pursued in Parliament. Members of Parliament are in danger of being licensed only to discuss what Ministers want them to discuss. We accept that principle at our peril.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: The right hon. Gentleman is saying : "Love me, love my friend". He said that anybody we choose must automatically be a good person, otherwise we are being vetted. Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that he has never chosen an unreliable, disloyal or untrustworthy friend? Why is it so bad to have that person put to a reasonable test to see whether the Member's judgment is right? Members are not always infallible, as the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has to be careful before the House claims for itself the right to assess the conduct of its Members, including the conduct of a Member in selecting an assistant. No hon. Member got here by the consent of the House but by the consent of the constituents. I am probably one of the few hon. Members who has been expelled by a vote of the House on, of all things, the absurd ground of peerage. I have experienced what it is like when a majority is used to expel a Member in defence of some ludicrous medieval principle. Since that day I have always defended the rights of Members of any party to come here, with the authority of their electors, and to exercise their power in the interests of their constituents and in the pursuit of their beliefs.
If we do not challenge this rule, we shall be reversing centuries of struggle—some of it, as in the 17th century, violent and bloody—by which the people fought to elect Members of Parliament explicitly to control the Crown and its Ministers in the name of democracy and not to be licensed by the Crown to tell them what they can do, and whom they can employ.
Nothing that I say could be taken as questioning the need for the most stringent physical security of the building in which we work or the necessity to have those convicted of an offence to be dealt with by the courts. My right hon. Friends have tabled an amendment that seeks to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges, on which I have the honour to serve. I will certainly support that proposal, as I did earlier this year when I moved an amendment concerning the Zircon case designed to have that effect.
But even if the House, in its wisdom, decides to follow that course, it in no way detracts from the importance of making a clear declaration, before the Committee of Privileges meets, on the rights of one individual not to be named, without a hearing, in a way that would damage him, and on the importance of maintaining the basic principles upon which parliamentary democracy is founded, which is that Ministers are responsible to hon. Members and that hon. Members are not responsible to Ministers. Break that rule and we shall throw away centuries of struggle.
In the light of what has happened, I recognise that there is a great deal of fear and anger in the House. But those emotions are not a good guide as to how we should react, least of all in the defence of personal freedom, and our ancient democratic rights which offer the surest long-term safeguards against violence. I commend my amendment, in that spirit, to the House.

Mr. John Biffen: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) spoke with characteristic zeal. He elevated every difficulty—heaven knows, there are enough difficulties — into matters of high principle. That is understandable in that the Chamber has witnessed more violence than enough, not just recently, but nearly half a century ago, when part of the Chamber was devastated during a bombing raid that was designed to underline the challenge that will always be made to this cradle of authority by those who seek to set that authority aside. The debate has generated feelings of passion. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we ought to be debating this not in anger but rather in more measured terms.
I shall put three points to the House, and I apologise at once if they fall below the level of drama in the preceding speech. They are not intended to be points of great principle but points of great practicality, pending some other occasion when perhaps the matter can be further considered. There is a strong argument for not involving too much innovation in such matters. The first point is that for quite a while we have had an informal committee. That informal committee has done a thoroughly good job. It has been relatively quiet, occasionally almost inaudible, certainly in the last Parliament, but none the less I think the House is indebted to those who have served on that informal committee for all the work they have done to try to improve the workaday security arrangements of the House. The


committee considered many pedestrian matters that involved hon. Members and their working practices and in no way involved great issues of principle, let alone being taken for some further consideration or resolution elsewhere.
The second point is that, in the very nature of how we conduct our affairs, that workaday informal committee had a whole range of problems to address. Recently it has invoked a major challenge to the practices in the recommendation that was made before the withdrawal of Mr. Bennett's pass. On the whole, the House has responded with remarkable maturity to that challenge.
First, the authority was clearly vested in Mr. Speaker. That has not terminated the matter. There was wider concern, and the House, using its procedures, is holding today's debate. It is not in any sense a censure of Mr. Speaker—it is much more akin to the Zircon affair, in which a holding position was taken, which was subsequently confirmed by the House. The House has the capacity to resolve these matters on the Floor when they involve a matter of that magnitude.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman inadvertently said that the House had confirmed the Speaker's decision. The House has never debated the report of the Select Committee on Privileges.

Mr. Biffen: The House has considered the decision about Mr. Bennett. Today represents a judgment on that decision, and if anyone pretends otherwise, he is the victim of such casuistry as to undermine the entire debate. We enjoy the happy circumstances of operating from the almost subterranean activities of the informal committee, and when it demands the attention of the House, we can debate the matter here. Let us understand and grasp that simple, great virtue of our position. Let us think hard before trying to rationalise or set up any new committees that will try to operate in conditional circumstances all the paraphernalia of some sort of sub-structure to handle the intimate affairs of security.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has done the House a great service by emphasising how, at the end of the day, so many of these matters turn on the authority of Mr. Speaker. I believe that that authority can be sustained by this Parliament in relevant and appropriate circumstances. We do the cause of security no great advantage by over-reacting and producing a host of new committees and considerations. Opposition Members pointed out how important it was not to over-react in the face of terrorist attack or threat. So saying, I commend the motion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to my hon. Friends and the whole House.

Mr. John Cartwright: All hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have committed themselves to the concept of stringent security around our activities in this place. When I bring parties into the House they do not object to going through the security checks at the entrances. They regard that as common sense in the sort of world in which we live, and they are right to do so.
I also strongly agree with the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) about the informal committee that advises you, Mr. Speaker, on security matters. I was slightly surprised to hear it referred to in

some of the earlier exchanges as some sort of secret committee. Anyone who recalls the enthusiasm with which Mr. Walter Harrison used to display some of the new techniques and equipment that had improved the security of the House would find it hard to believe that the committee was a secret operation—good job though it certainly did.
There may be a case for regularising the arrangements of that committee and, perhaps, making it a little more formal to ensure that the House is aware of its activities and that it is broadly representative of the House. Its activities and procedures will thereby be sanctified by the endorsement of the House rather more than now. Perhaps the Services Committee could examine that suggestion in the light of our debate.
We should have debated security issues rather more than we have in the recent past. It is right to regularise the present procedures affecting staff; all staff should be treated in exactly the same way. The procedures set out in paragraph 23 of the report are sensible and we should support them.
All of us recognise that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a clear and sincere attempt to bridge the differences between us on a difficult issue. He recognised the need for stringent security, but wanted, too, to protect the rights of individuals who may come up against the security system. I was relieved to hear that he does not want the facts of any individual case to be laid before the House, because his amendment speaks of evaluation by the House of information furnished by the Metropolitan police. He seems to be imagining a committee of senior Members, but that immediately brings us up against the sort of problems that have already been mentioned. It is very difficult for the security forces to reveal sources of information without endangering those sources.
Any committee worth its salt will not accept just like that information laid before it. If such a committee is charged by the House with investigating these cases, it will be duty-bound to demand to see all the evidence and, perhaps, the witnesses, and to indulge in a full-scale inquiry. That raises the question whether people should be legally represented in such an inquiry. Even if it were sensible to go down that road, I doubt whether it would be feasible. In any case, knowing this House as well as you do, Mr. Speaker, you might agree that any committee of the great and the good that examined these matters behind closed doors and produced a report might well not satisfy hon. Members if its conclusions endorsed the recommendations of the security services.
We must face the fact that any vetting system will be unfair to the individual. One must make a balanced judment between the rights and needs of the individual and the security of the majority. As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras rightly reminded us, one of the problems of dealing with terrorism is that it forces us steadily to change our procedures in ways that we do not much like. I do not care for that process, but it is a fact of life and we must accept it. The hon. Gentleman said that we should be prepared to take risks in this place to protect the rights of the individual. I take exactly the opposite position — I would rather risk an injustice to one individual to protect the rights and security of the House. I argue for erring on the side of safety and security, and that is why I shall vote for the motion.

Mr. Cranky Onslow: This has been an interesting and valuable debate. I rise, first, to support you, Mr. Speaker, in the decisions that you have taken that have brought us to the debate today. Secondly, I wish to support the speech and motion of of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. As regards the amendent in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, I want to anticipate by saying that the manuscript amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) is seeking to move to it is entirely acceptable to me, and I hope that the House will accept it, too.
I must be careful in my choice of words. The House has been helped — wittingly or unwittingly — by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who has brought matters to the point at which we are considering them today. I agree with those hon. Members who said that the horrible tragedy of the weekend should not make any difference to our decision. The issues before us were pretty clear before, and we do not need to be so unhappily reminded of the security threat that faces so many people in all parts of the United Kingdom. However, we need to take our own security seriously, and the hon. Member for Islington, North has given us the chance to do that.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will speak in due course, because there are one or two questions that he has yet to answer. One of them was expressed vividly by his hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who drew attention to what he described as a curiosity. It strikes me as one, too. I wonder why it should have been necessary for the hon. Member for Islington, North to apply for a pass for his research assistant, Mr. Bennett, in the middle of the recess so that he could come into the precincts of the building. Was he aware of the proceedings and recommendations of the Select Committee, and did he give them any thought?
I have to say to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that I do not rate it as one of our treasured conventions that any hon. Member should not merely have the right to employ whom he wishes — which we are not challenging — but should have the right to demand for that person, whoever he may be, unfettered access unescorted to the entire Palace of Westminster. He says that he knows of no votes of the House which forbid it; I certainly know of no votes of the House which sanction it. So let us agree that that is uncharted territory unexplored even by Mr. Speaker Lenthall.
When the right hon. Member for Chesterfield describes Mr. Bennett as being completely unemployable, I think he may be exaggerating. I detected at that moment the faint harmony of that haunting music, "The entry of the men in white coats". We are not talking about making Mr. Bennett completely unemployable. All we are saying is that if the hon. Member for Islington, North wants to employ him, he cannot by decision of this House do so on terms which permit him to roam about this building on his own. It is possible to have two views on this matter, if I may put it that way. I do not normally pray Mr. Edward Pearce in aid of my argument, but some hon. Members may have seen an article which he wrote in The Sunday Times on 26 October in which he said — and this is really the question for the hon. Member to answer:
But who with a particle of sense invites a man once charged with murder to be his research assistant, knowing that he is certain to remain a suspicious person to any competent security man?

It may be helpful to the House if the hon. Member addresses himself to that point in due course. But it is essential that the House should preserve the distinction between employability, which is not affected, and access, which can be.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) conceded the principle of possible exclusion and that he granted the House that there may be people whom hon. Members do not want to have roaming freely about the building. These people may come from many different directions. The hon. Gentleman and I might not necessarily always agree on who they are, but we would agree that such people may exist and that we should all be protected against them; and so should everybody who works in the building. There is no difference between us on that. The difference rests on how the sanction is best to be exercised.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras wants to have a committee of great and good. I share the reservations of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) on that. It may prove difficult for the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee to carry the burden which the Services Committee recommendation indicates that it would be willing to accept that
A Member dissatisfied with an explanation of a refusal to issue a pass is at liberty to make representations to the Accommodation &amp; Administration Sub-Committee whose decision on the issue of a pass we would normally regard as final.
I am much inclined towards the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). There may be abnormal cases where you, Mr. Speaker, will inevitably have to consider a difficulty which the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee cannot resolve. But it may equally be that in the ordinary case, if I may use that word, that Committee will have no difficulty in coming to a conclusion that a certain person should either be admitted or barred.
What is absolutely essential is that we should recognise the sheer dimensions of the problem with which hon. Members themselves have confronted our security force. I hope that the House will find helpful information which I was able to discover this morning from the Pass Office computer on the current number of passes on issue for Members' secretaries and research assistants. They total 1,247, of which, by my rough calculation, two thirds are for secretaries. I did the sum earlier; there are 859 secretaries and 388 research assistants. What may also help the House is the knowledge that of that grand total 103 are American nationals and 26 are other foreign nationals of 11 different nationalities. Anyone who is curious to know what those nationalities are can get the information, but this shows the size of the task which we invite our defenders to perform so that we should not be subject to risks of which we are not aware and against which we want to be protected.
In all this I must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton: the ultimate responsibility is yours, Mr. Speaker. As you will remember, at the beginning of this Parliament I proposed you for the Chair that you now occupy. So I am absolutely content that you should have that responsibility, but I also recognise, and I think every


hon. Member recognises, that you cannot perform your task unless we give you every possible help in exercising it

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I recognise the atmosphere in which the debate is taking place, but I think that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is very important that the debate is actually about the issue before us.
I believe that the House is in serious danger of taking a decision which will take powers away from itself and hand them over to a secret, unelected and unaccountable security service which will ultimately have power over hon. Members. That should worry every hon. Member, whether they agree with my views on the rest of the world or with any Conservative Member. It will have an effect on every one of us if we vote through the proposal of the Services Committee which, in effect, would take powers away from the House. Once the House has accepted the principle of removing powers from itself, the precedent has been made, the process will continue and other powers will be removed at other times.
The question also extends beyond merely the research assistants of individuals hon. Members. It also extends to staff in the House, to members of the press in the House and to the principle of secret vetting and secret evidence being made available against an individual but not being made available to that individual or to his employer or his defender.
I am delighted to defend Mr. Ronan Bennett. The only problem I have is that I know not with what he has been charged. Nobody has told me at any stage what Mr. Bennett is supposed to have done. This is a democracy. Mr. Bennett has been smeared in every newspaper in the land; he has been smeared by a large number of Conservative Members; he has been smeared by innuendo. Yet no one, not one person, is prepared to come forward and say exactly what the evidence against him is.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose——

Mr. Corbyn: No, I will not give way.
That is a serious matter and the House should consider very seriously what it is about to do.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose——

Mr. Corbyn: No, I am not giving way. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members do not wish to listen to the serious attack on democracy that is taking place they are free to leave the Chamber, as I am sure you are well aware, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Member has to give way if he does not wish to do so.

Mr. Corbyn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I intend to put exactly on the record what happened on the occasion of my engagement of Mr. Ronan Bennett as my research assistant. It is important that it is put on the record and it is only in the House that I am able to do so. Many other forms of media are not interested in the matter; they are more interested in smearing an individual for what they believe to be his beliefs without even asking what they are.
I engaged Mr. Bennett on 18 August as a temporary research assistant to work with me and to provide me with

advice, information, background notes and all the rest of it on matters of denial of justice in this country. He is eminently qualified to do that. He has a number of references from very well qualified lawyers and academics in this country who will attest to his ability, knowledge and understanding. It is important that that is placed on the record.
I applied for his pass in the normal way and it was issued immediately in the normal way by the Pass Office. He was then sent a form to ask for his declaration of interests and other employment, which he completed and returned. Indeed, the completed entry in the register of interests of research staff was returned to me. As far as I was concerned, he was employed by me to undertake work for me.
There then appeared outside my constituency surgery on 5 September 1987 two extremely aggressive and unpleasant people, who introduced themselves to me as being from the News of the World. They demanded to know why I had employed Mr. Bennett, and they went on to describe in graphic and colourful language that they had numerous statements from Conservative Members condemning me for employing this man, and asked what I thought about that.
The following day, an article appeared in the News of the World in lurid and colourful tones condemning me and Mr. Bennett. Only in passing did it admit or mention that Mr. Bennett has not been convicted of anything, because the conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal in 1975; it did not say that the exclusion order placed on him under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 1978 was lifted, after a three-month trial at the Old Bailey during which he defended himself and was complimented on his ability to do so by Judge Alan King-Hamilton. The article did not say these things in an open and overt way; it sought merely to condemn Mr. Bennett. That was the start of all this.
During my many conversations with journalists from the News of the World on 5 September 1987, one of them said to me in reply to my question how he had all this information and on what basis he was saying that Mr. Bennett was a security risk, "I have seen the security file."
I echo strongly what my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said. If the security services, in their attempt to smear an individual and a Member of Parliament, are passing information to the nastiest and most unreliable gutter press that the world has seen, in the form of the News of the World, which is then used to condemn people, that merits at least an inquiry into what the security services are up to.
What then followed was again interesting for the connection that appears to exist between people who support either the Government's point of view on the matter or the security services and News International. On 3 October, I was telephoned by some journalists from The Sunday Times, who are far more competent than their colleagues on the News of the World, and far more reasonable in their approach. The subsequent article was considerably better written, but again they had information that Mr. Bennett's security pass was about to be withdrawn.
I had not been told about this; I had not been told anything about Mr. Bennett's pass during this time. The article appeared the following day on 4 October. Subsequently, Mr. Speaker, I received the letter from you confirming that Mr. Bennett's pass had been suspended


because of advice that we know not, from whom we know not, saying we know not what, except that Mr. Bennett had some sort of stain on his character.
A very serious issue is at stake here. Mr. Bennett, having been cleared by courts at every level in this land, pursuing an academic career and employed by a Member of Parliament, is smeared by the press. The News of the World then claim a victory, as do Conservative Members, in having his pass suspended—it is a victory, as they put it. Mr. Bennett's pass is suspended, but how do we defend him? We do not know what he is supposed to have done. We do not know what allegations are being made against him, although there is a big question mark.
It is a bit rich and mealy-mouthed of the Leader of the House and other hon. Members to say that this is not taking away my right to employ Mr. Bennett. Of course it is not taking away my right to employ him; I know that it is not. But it does implant the view through every television screen, radio broadcast and newspaper in this country that there is something badly wrong with Mr. Ronan Bennett, to the extent that he is not allowed to be employed in the House of Commons. Yet there is no charge against him, nor a criminal record outstanding against him. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a bit of a risk if the House, with Members elected to defend democracy, allows someone to be condemned without charge, trial or hearing in the way that it is apparently about to do this evening.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Corbyn: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
It is important for us to remember many of the other issues that are before us. This House is an elected place because people struggled to make Parliament an elected and representative democracy. Hon. Members are elected by their constituents to make laws. Hon. Members are not invited to join the House of Commons by a majority decision. It is not a golf club committee that decides to invite me to come here and represent Islington, North, any more than it is a case of the Rotary club inviting people to join us. This is an elected Chamber. I was elected on behalf of the people of Islington, North in just the same way that every other hon. Member has been elected by constituents, whom they represent.
Therefore, if the House approves the motion, which will prevent Mr. Bennett from having a pass, because it believes him to be some kind of risk—nobody has ever said what sort of risk he is—obviously the message that will be received outside the House is that I am somehow or other unacceptable to the House. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen might well find the matter very amusing. But I say to them that once the House of Commons allows a tyrannical majority opinion to be imposed on a minority, we shall be on a downward slope and the trend will become irreversible. This is a very serious matter, and I urge all hon. Members to think through the basis on which they were elected to the House, and operate as Members of Parliament. I urge hon. Members to think whether the majority in the House should start to remove rights and privileges from minorities and hon. Members; that is a very dangerous process.
I believe that we should also consider the running of the——

Mr. Porter: rose——

Mr. Corbyn: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
We should also consider the running of the security services in this country, and the way they operate. I have just given an example which I believe is the tip of an iceberg. I have given an example of what I believe to be a case where the security services, probably having not persuaded somebody that Mr. Bennett's pass should be withdrawn, decided to leak the matter to the News of the World. They set the hounds running to create an atmosphere in which Mr. Bennett's pass could be withdrawn. It must also be said that we do not know anything about the security services from statements made by Ministers to the House; they are an unaccountable force. In fact, to find out anything about the security forces which is in a published form we have to go to Australia, or buy "Spycatcher", which tells of the experiences of one senior member of the security services.
That book contains many examples of the way in which the security services have sought to undermine democracy and free living in Britain. For example, on page 54 Mr. Peter Wright goes in detail into the way in which in 1955 the membership files of the Communist party were stolen from someone's flat, illegally copied and used for the next 20 years as a basis for the surveillance of trade union and Labour movement activity in Britain. There is nothing illegal about being in the Communist party in Britain or in living in Britain and supporting the Communist party.
There are many other examples throughout the book. On page——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the element of sub judice in that that case is before the British courts? He must not quote from the book, but he may refer to it.

Mr. Corbyn: I was seeking to refer to the description of the way in which members of the security services sought to flout the democratic results of several general elections in Britain, to undermine, destabilise and ultimately remove the elected Government of Harold Wilson, now Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. There are many other examples. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members find the matter so amusing, it shows how shallow their judgment is on these matters. Ultimately, if no control is brought over the security services and the way in which they operate, they will destroy the very democracy under which they are hiding. They have proved to be a fundamentally undemocratic force which seeks to impose its rather curious, cockeyed view of the world on elected people, elected Governments and society generally.
The events of the past few years bear close examination. We have seen British newspaper offices and the BBC's offices in Scotland raided. We have seen the disconnection of telephones all over Salisbury plain when cruise missiles are out. We have seen the surveillance of people who are opposed to the presence of nuclear missiles in Britain. We have also seen the prevention of the publication of a large number of books. Why could not "British Intelligence and Covert Action" be published in Britain? It had to be published abroad because legal threats were made against anyone who sought to publish it. There is also the informal threat through the D-notice system.
If the House is genuinely concerned about liberty and freedom of expression, it must stand up for these issues. The British newspapers should not continue their supine support for an increasingly aggressive and authoritarian Government who are destroying and denying many liberties in Britain. It is important that everyone should be warned of exactly what has happened to one research assistant and the denial of justice that is implicit in the decision that Conservative Members clearly wish to take against that person. They know perfectly well that there is no court in the land to which he can appeal because all that has been said against him has been said in secret and an administrative decision has been taken against him against which he cannot appeal. That is the first thing that is so wrong about what has been said.
We should also deplore the secret agenda that is being imposed on us by the security services in this matter. If we accept that secret agenda—that secret power—and the secret smearing of individuals that goes on, further damage will be done later.
All hon. Members are elected to represent their constituencies, not the House. Therefore, they should be concerned about taking powers away from the House and handing them on somewhere else. Hon. Members should also be aware that people outside the House will consider it rather curious that we sit here hour after hour, night after night, debating and discussing the fine detail of the law that is to be administered to the rest of the country, but at the same time take a draconian decision that would have done credit to the Court of Star Chamber in removing the pass of someone employed by a Member of the House.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Corbyn: No, I shall not give way.
That episode, to which I have been a party since the early part of August, has taught me about the sordid nature of the private, secret relationship between the security services, certain newspapers and some hon. Members, hiding behind the cloak of immunity and off-the-record remarks made to newspapers in the attempt to smear and destroy one individual.
It might be said that it would have been much easier if I had merely dispensed with Mr. Bennett's services at the first sign of any flak. I refused to do that because that person has no convictions against him and he has a right to work for me. Above all, I, as a Member of Parliament, have a right to employ him.
If we do not do something about the power of unelected, secret and unaccountable security services, untold damage will be done to many other British people. Other smears will take place and other damage will be done. I invite the House to think seriously about those matters and to support the Opposition amendments which seek to protect the very democracy on which Conservative Members are so often pleased to preach in such a sanctimonious manner to the rest of the country.

Mr. Ian Gow: If there were any lingering doubts in any part of the House about your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, in suspending Mr. Bennett's security pass, they have been removed by the hon. Member for Islington,

North (Mr. Corbyn). It is now confirmed, as many people outside the House knew already, that a loony-Left Labour Member had appointed a Left research assistant.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw that remark because it touches on the honour of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)?

Mr. Gow: I thought that it was a term of endearment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is a term of endearment to certain Labour Members.

Mr. Gow: Of course, I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Islington, North asked what employment prospects there would be for his former research assistant. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) made clear, it is open to the hon. Gentleman to continue to employ Mr. Bennett as a research assistant, but not within the precincts of the Palace. It will also be possible for Mr. Bennett to find employment—here you will not rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker — with some of those loony Left-wing councils. I am one of those who have the misfortune to live in the London borough of Lambeth. I am sure that. Mr. Bennett will be able to find employment among those who control Lambeth borough council.

Mr. John David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gow: No, let me get on a little and then I shall give way.
I hope that after the community charge has become law the ability of Lambeth borough council to employ people such as Mr. Bennett will be diminished.

Mr. John David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. Gow: No, let me get on a little.
I want to examine some of the assertions in the amendment of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). They are assertions in which even the right hon. Gentleman and his friends cannot believe. Those who have signed the amendment have done a service to the House and to the country because they have exposed once again how the hard Left in British politics uses high-sounding phrases such as "principles of parliamentary democracy" to cloak its determination to advance its own interests by any means, including those that are incompatible with democracy.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield concluded his speech by saying that he was the champion of democracy. However, the right hon. Gentleman encouraged and supported violence on the picket lines to prevent miners who wanted to work from doing so. He was one of the principal allies of Mr. Arthur Scargill. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman, the self-proclaimed champion of democracy, was anxious to deny democracy to the trade unions. At every stage he voted against proposals to make secret ballots compulsory. How dare the right hon. Gentleman include his amendment in the Order Paper and then conclude his speech with a statement of his own commitment to democracy?
I want to consider some of the assertions in the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.

Mr. Benn: I shall not make any response to the hon. Gentleman's comments about me, but will he comment on the fact that Ronan Bennett served 13 months in prison for an offence that he did not commit? Is not it right that some apology should be made by someone to him for his false conviction and that that should be taken into account when references are made to him and his prospects?

Mr. Gow: It is not up to a Back-Bench Member to comment on the original conviction of Mr. Bennett or on the subsequent occasion when that conviction was quashed.
I want to consider some of the assertions in the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. The amendment states:
Hon. Members must have an equal right to employ whoever they wish…in the Palace of Westminster.
That is a breathtaking proposition. Is an hon. Member to be allowed to employ a member or a supporter of the IRA within the precincts of the House? Is he to be allowed to employ within the precincts of the House a member or supporter of the Ulster Volunteer Force? Is an hon. Member to be allowed to employ in this place a member of the PLO? Are the security services to be denied the opportunity of protecting innocent people who visit the House of Commons and the hundreds of people who work here?
It is not possible to put hon. Members on a special pinnacle which makes them exempt from the proper scrutiny of the security services. The amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield continues:
The withdrawal of the pass issued to Mr. Ronan Bennett has … unjustly, identified him as a potential threat to national security".
The security services reported to Mr. Speaker and, on the basis of that report, Mr. Speaker decided to withdraw the pass. In effect, the amendment challenges Mr. Speaker's judgment on a security matter.
Less than five months ago a motion was moved that Mr. Speaker
do take the Chair of this House as Speaker."—[Official Report, 17 June 1987; Vol. 118, c.2.]
That motion was seconded by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) who said:
throughout the period for which he has sustained the office of Speaker, the right hon. Member for Croydon, North-East has discharged his duties in such a way as to bring great honour to this House.
He went on:
Principalities, powers and Prime Ministers all have to be resisted at times, and the right hon. Gentleman has shown that he knows that to be a part of his function." —[Official Report, 17 June 1987; Vol. 118, c. 2–4]
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent has not signed the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent used to be the darling of the Left. Now even he is embarrassed by the amendment. Not one of those hon. Members who have signed the amendment voted against your taking the Chair, Mr. Speaker. Why not? Surely it would have been in accordance with those principles of parliamentary democracy referred to by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield in the amendment if there had been an alternative candidate for the Chair. Perhaps they could not agree among themselves which of them would fit more engagingly into wig, gown and buckled shoes. Perhaps some of the signatories to the amendment would claim that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)

would have been the best choice, although some adjustment to the dress would have been required. Others would have preferred, as in former times, that there should have been a beard under Mr. Speaker's wig and the choice could then have fallen on the principal author of our discontent this afternoon, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

Mr. Benn: Be serious about a serious matter.

Mr. Gow: On Wednesday last week the right hon. Member for Chesterfield raised a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker. He said:
I understand that for some time, and unknown to the House, an unofficial security committee of Members of all parties has been meeting".—[Official Report, 4 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 932.]
I stress the words "unknown to the House."
Your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, made two statements to the House, on 29 March 1976 and 27 July 1977, in which he made it perfectly clear that the informal joint committee of both Houses was a continuing one. The earlier statement records Mr. Speaker stating:
I have consulted the Leader of the House and the authorities in the House of Lords, all of whom are in agreement that a Permanent Joint Committee should be set up." —[Official Report, 29 March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 896.]
I stress the word "permanent".
The amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield asserts that the House:
knows of no powers that this House has … or could legitimately, take or assume, to determine who may work for an hon. Member in the Palace of Westminster.
However, more than 22 years ago the Lord Chamberlain, with the consent of the Queen, surrendered control of the Accommodation and services of this House to Mr. Speaker. Of course, Mr. Speaker exercises that control on behalf of the House and as its servant. Page 219 of "Erskine May" makes that very clear:
In the House of Commons control is vested in the Speaker on behalf of the House.
The Standing Orders of the House provide that the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) should advise Mr. Speaker on the control of accommodation and services. The amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield rejects the unanimous recommendation of that Committee. Six Labour Members served on that Select Committee. Not one of them dissented from the recommendation from which the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield dissents. The House might have more respect for those who support the amendment if the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had voted in favour of the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. Not one of them has done so. The amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield will give comfort to those who wish to undermine the security of this place.
The amendment is at best mischievous and at worst dangerous. However, we may leave the final verdict on the right hon. Member for Chesterfield to someone who knew him much better than I. On page 80 of the third volume of his diaries, the right hon. Gentleman's friend and mentor Dick Crossman states that his one concrete suggestion is that we should have government by electronic referendum. He concludes:
The real problem about him is that his presentation is brilliant, but what he says is normally second rate and sometimes disastrously stupid.


I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree with that conclusion.

Mr. Clive Soley: All that I wish to say in my initial response to the contribution of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is that it does no credit to the House or the hon. Gentleman to start a debate on such a difficult and technical matter by resorting to abuse or superficiality. That does no good to anyone inside or outside the House, particularly in view of events that have taken place over the years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a good and constructive contribution. He pointed out that the immediate threat to the House comes from terrorism in one form or another. He went on to say what I have been saying for many years—that in its wake it brings another threat, the threat to democracy. Terrorist groups in various parts of the world often seek to destroy democracy. We must establish whether we are getting the balance right between protecting the House and the institutions of democracy, and protecting the lives of individuals who may be at risk.
It comes as a relief to me, because I began to point this out in 1980 when I was first involved in the politics of Northern Ireland, that people now recognise what Conservative Members certainly did not recognise before — that the aim of paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland is to make the state here act in a more and more repressive manner. No less a person than the Prime Minister said yesterday that it was necessary to react more rationally, and, despite the emotion engendered by the events of the last few days, to exercise great reason and care. I support her in that. I only wish that Conservative Members had said it earlier in this decade; we might have reached the present position rather sooner.
My concern is not whether the Government have got the matter right, but that neither we nor the Leader of the House can know whether they have got it right. The difficulty is that the Conservative party seems to believe—this theme runs through nearly all the contributions that we have so far heard—that efficiency in the security services cannot go hand in hand with democracy. We take the opposite view. We believe not only that the security services operate effectively in a democracy, but that, unless a good many democratic checks and balances are in place, the security services will not only pose a danger to the country but, at times, do themselves a disservice and make a mockery of themselves. That can be seen from the "Spycatcher" escapade.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The hon. Gentleman has raised a valuable point, and has done a service to the House, which was in danger of trivialising a very serious issue.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, because of the unique set of circumstances that would surround such a judgment, the information presented to whoever made the necessary decision would fall into the category of either evidence, intelligence or suspicion? Surely the more protection exists within the group of people making a decision, the less chance there will be for suspicion to rule, and the more chance there will be that justice will be done for the individual, and protection given to others in the Palace.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is much more experienced in such matters than most hon. Members, and I urge the hon. Member for Eastbourne to listen carefully to what he says. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh knows, as I have known for many years, that such legislation as the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 are a required recruiting sergeant-major for the Provisional IRA arid other paramilitary groups. If the hon. Member for Eastbourne would at least consider that point, I would listen to his remarks with more respect. By not taking it seriously, the hon. Gentleman does what he accuses everyone else of doing. He plays into their hands.
The threat is real. Members of Parliament have been killed, members of the staff of the House have been injured—we need only remember the letter-bomb campaign of a few years ago—and there is a threat to the Houses of Parliament themselves, because they are a prestige target. The problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras pointed out, is the balance to he struck in protecting the institution.
My hon. Friend touched on two other points. First, he talked about risk-taking. We in the House ask members of the general security services—for instance, the police and the armed forces—to take risks, and, as my hon. Friend said, we too must take such risks. Let me give an example from Northern Ireland. If a police or prison officer feels that his life is under threat—as is frequently the case—because his address is known or because of activities that have taken place near it, he can apply to be moved. That practice is well established. When the necessary checks have been made, he may indeed be moved. However, the definition of risk is a tight one and officers who feel that they are at risk often have to stay where they are. Any Northern Ireland Member will know the feeling on this issue in both the prison and the police services. We are asking those men to take that risk as a consequence of debates in the House, and decisions that we make. We, too, must take risks.
Secondly, my hon. Friend pointed out—as I have pointed out over the years—that the paramilitary seeks to make a state more and more repressive. I remember that, soon after I was appointed as Front Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland in, I believe, 1981, I met a number of people who required far heavier security than I did, in both the Republic and the north of Ireland. I remember being driven to one appointment and receiving the usual special branch attention in the south. A senior Member of Parliament in a Government position said to me, "I did not know that you received that kind of security. I decided not to do so."
I thought hard about what that person had said, and discussed it with him. He said that if we continued down that road—and this applies in the United Kingdom as much as in Eire—we would end up with the police outriders, the sirens, the guarded politicians and everything that makes the democratic state seem remote, apparently controlled and protected by the police. We must resist that. I take my hat off to those in Ireland, north and south, who have faced the problem much more consistently than we have over the years. We have usually had to face it only when the Provisional IRA has chosen to launch a bombing campaign on our mainland.
The security services are the key. One of the reasons for our problems in today's debate is that the security services are not effectively accountable. We have two of the most


famous security services in the world, MI5 and MI6: everyone knows about them, from Australia to Britain and back again, even in China and Tibet. But they do not exist in statute. Debates such as this would be much easier if we knew that we had a system in which the security services were accountable, as they are in other countries such as Australia, Canada, the United States and West Germany. They would then be no less effective—in many respects, they would be more so—and we would have a check
that does not now exist.
I strongly recommend the amendment. What worries me about so many of the interruptions from the Government Benches—usually made from a sedentary position—is their apparent wish to believe that Mr. Bennett is guilty, and that the court got it wrong. I can understand why they may wish to believe that, but I must point out the other side of the coin. After all, Conservative Members are always making this point about law and order and the courts.
If it is assumed that everyone who has been before a court and found not guilty is possibly guilty, it must also be stressed that the courts may get it wrong when they find someone guilty. Nevertheless, when someone is found guilty whom Conservative Members want to be found guilty, they defend the court's decision like mad. We cannot have it both ways; we must place our judgment in the court. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras rightly pointed out, if someone is found not guilty, it does not mean that he is not a security risk. We cannot have appalling scenes, with Conservative Members, some of whom have now left the Chamber, shouting, "Yes, we know, we know." They do not know. The courts do not know. We do not even know what the police believe about Mr. Bennett. Some of the police who brought Mr. Bennett before the courts, as opposed to the security services that might have been responsible for giving the information, may accept that Mr. Bennett is innocent.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Would the hon. Gentleman's view be different if I, or other of my hon. Friends, applied for a security pass for a research assistant if that person had been discharged recently from Lambeth magistrates' court, having been arrested on the charge of attempting to kidnap members of the African National Congress? Such a person would not have been either found guilty or convicted of anything by the courts. I understand that most Opposition Members believe that those men represent the interests of the South African intelligence service. Would not the hon. Gentleman's view be different about that, if I sought to employ such a man?

Mr. Soley: In that case I should assume innocence until guilt had been proved in a court of law. If there were a system such as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has set out in his amendment, we should be able to deal with the case that has been put to me by the hon. Gentleman. We should also be able to deal with the case that was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
If Mr. Bennett cannot be employed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, I am not sure what would be the advantage of saying that he could still enter this building. If he were able to enter the building, all that we should have done would be to limit the areas that he

could enter. If the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) chose to take his seat, he could sit down in the Chamber, measure it and go anywhere else that he liked. He could bring all his personal belongings into the building without any check being made upon him. The policy of the party that he leads in Northern Ireland is that of the Armalite rather than the ballot box. I do not know what the hon. Member for Belfast, West would seek to do if he chose to take his seat, but there is merit in my hon. Friend's point: that there may be far better ways of doing this than the way that we are doing it at the moment.
We should forget about vetting. The EEC makes everybody—members of the European Parliament and others—go through a security check when they enter secure areas. We should consider such options rather than vetting, because vetting provides opportunities for paramilitary groups. If there is to be vetting, there is pressure to vet everyone — research assistants, secretaries, the press, canteen staff. If the Provisional IRA, INLA or one of the Unionist paramilitary groups decided to blow up something else, we should have to vet everybody in that area, too. For example, post office boxes were a favourite target fairly recently. Everybody in the postal service, right down to the canteen staff, would have to be vetted.
Vetting can be singularly inefficient. If it becomes too heavy a burden, all one can do is run the names through a computer. If I wanted to plant someone from the Provisional IRA or the Soviet Union in this building, I should not plant them with the obvious person; I should plant them with the least obvious person. I have pointed out on a number of occasions that those who have betrayed this country have not been members of the Labour party. They have been members of the Conservative party. To be effective, that is the side on which to plant them. We need to be more sophisticated than that. We need the committee structure that my hon. Friend has suggested.
Contacts by both Unionist and Republican parties in Northern Ireland with paramilitary groups have at times been very close. Members of Parliament, both Conservative and Labour, have also had contacts with those groups—contacts that many of us would regard as too close for comfort. We cannot make assumptions about one person who has appeared before a court.
We need to look with much more care at security in this building. I am more concerned about the vetting of cars than I am about the vetting of people. The changes over security checks on cars during the last couple of years are a much greater cause for concern than the vetting of secretaries and research assistants. A Member of Parliament has no way of knowing what is alleged against a particular person. If we trust democracy, we must sufficiently trust the elected representatives and set up a committee structure in which we can have confidence. It must be provided with information that will enable it to enter a proper judgment. We cannot presume guilt by making assumptions that the courts of law have said are not correct. However, that is what is happening now, and that is fundamentally wrong.
Democracy is not lost by a grand, overnight coup. It is lost by the slow erosion of civil liberties, usually at times of economic distress or war. In the 19th century, when Britain became the world's greatest democracy, we set ourselves remarkably high standards. Sadly, in the 20th century we have been found guilty before the European


Court of Human Rights of violating many basic democratic rights. We have violated those rights more than any other country has violated them. That is the by product of two world wars and the Northern Ireland emergency.
There has to be a political solution to the Northern Ireland problem, but that is not relevant to this debate. Unless we address ourselves to the way in which we are allowing the democratic process to be eroded, it will continue to be eroded, and that will lead to a miserable existence for us all.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: The general tenor of the contributions to this debate has been more than marred by the continual resurgence of the Opposition's vendetta against the security services. I have listened with great care to all the contributions, and I must confess that I am very worried that we shall lose sight of what we are trying to achieve—better security and the better protection of hon. Members and staff—in the greater argument about whether or not we agree with the techniques of the security services.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was very kind to his own party in seeking to provide in his amendment a mechanism by which it could get off the hook of the amendment that has been tabled by his own friends—if that is what they are called—on the far Left. I am disappointed that he advocated that the House should divide at the end of the debate, on the basis of his amendment. I thought that he supported the need for better protection of hon. Members and staff. He needed an excuse to try to build up pressure for the calling of a Division, and the grounds on which he wishes to divide the House are spurious in the extreme.
The House was in recess when the case arose that has given rise to this debate. No Committees had been set up. It might have been prudent, therefore, not to say that the Opposition would divide the House because the matter had not been referred to a Committee but to accept the reasonable course that reference to Mr. Speaker was the right action to take at that time. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras backed away from the logic of his argument.
I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's request for an inquiry into the source of the leak. I have heard leak after leak and, whatever party has been in government, the requirement for a journalist to give his source of information has always been denied. If Labour Members are asking for journalists to be able to protect their sources of information——

Ms. Clare Short: The security services behaved improperly.

Mr. Shepherd: I am told that it was a journalist who asked, "Is it true that you have employed an undesirable character?" That journalist has now been pressed to give his source of information. He might say that the security services is the source of the leak, but he would have to be a lot more precise than that.

Ms. Short: This is an important point. We know that vetting of some sort occurred. We know that reports were sent to the Speaker but not seen by him, but we want to know how the reports got from the security services to a journalist. The people who behaved improperly are those in the security services, not the journalists.

Mr. Shepherd: I am not sure that that is what happened. However, because of the nature of this inquiry, a journalist would have to disclose his sources. Therefore, an inquiry would fail. It is a spurious reason for the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to seek to divide the House However, he gave two reasons for wishing to divide the House : first, the inadequacy of the way that the information was handled and, secondly, the demand for an inquiry, which he suspected would not be granted.
Along with the late and lamented Mr. John Silkin, I was a co-author of the Services Committee's report. The Committee recognised that we could not ignore the security dimension. It was not within our remit, but as time went on it was clear that we had to take cognisance of the fact that there was a security dimension to everything that we were recommending. That is why paragraph 23 is in the report. We felt that, although the House had not given us the specific charge of considering security, we had to put down the appropriate markers and make suggestions accordingly. It is interesting to note that, when the report was debated on two previous occasions, no inquiries were raised about that specific subject. It is only when the whim or wish of an hon. Member is denied that we seek to return to the question again.
The fundamental point is the responsibilities that all of us in the House have to the others. A self-denying ordinance is always involved; we cannot always have our own way regardless of its effect on other people. As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, we have a responsibility not only to the 649 other Members but to the 2,500 employees of the Palace of Westminster who depend on us for their security, safety and ability to go about their work without fear. Therefore, we cannot say, "It is my right to employ whom I want and to hell with the rest of you." If we are told that somebody whom we have put forward for employment in the Palace is suspect, we must heed that advice; we cannot afford to be sorry afterwards. I can imagine an hon. Member making a personal statement after a disaster and saying, "Mr. Speaker, it did not occur to me," or, "I did not think." We cannot take that risk. If there is a shadow of doubt, we must accept the advice that we are given. The right and proper way to proceed was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who said that the Speaker is the custodian of trust in the House, and that we should heed Mr. Speaker's advice if it is tendered.
The mechanism that was set up by the report that was laid before the House in January in 1986 is perfectly fair, but some amendments could be made as to how advice is tendered. The delay to enable the Serjeant at Arms to have inquiries made is prudent, and it ill behoves us to ignore advice. If there is a shadow of doubt, we must not ignore it.
As to the self-denying ordinance, another more mundane dimension has been hovering around the edge of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) raised it in his amendment, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has agreed to accept it. I hope that he will accept my manuscript amendment because when we debated the matter in 1986 the resolution was wrong; we made it too narrow in referring only to research assistants. The term "research assistants" needs to be broadened to include hon. Members' personal assistants and hon. Members' personal staff.
When we adopted the report and put into effect its recommendations we were able to limit the numbers involved to 50 "overseas temporary research assistants", but as pressure increased, more 9C passes for temporary secretaries were being used and more 9D passes for temporary research assistants were being used, although those 9D people were not necessarily staying for the full four months that they were supposed to be employed. The consequence of that was that unreasonable pressures were being put on the Library—I had the honour of being Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee in the last Parliament—and the staff were placed in the invidious position of asking research assistants, "Who are you? What are you? What is your pass number? Are you entitled to be here? If not, go away."
Hon. Members who are not exercising this self-denying ordinance are loading the system, regardless of what happens. Some hon. Members have five research assistants working here, for whom there is no accommodation, and have no regard for the effect that it has on other people working in the House. We must reconsider this matter again because some hon. Members are not exercising this self-denying ordinance or regard that we have preached at us so often. It is a question of, "Don't do as I do; do as I say." It is right that we should return to this subject in the new Parliament to consider that matter.
With the best will in the world, the House has finite resources. We must work within them or agree that they be expanded under the appropriate framework. Currently, all that we have agreed is that hon. Members should reasonably expect to have a secretary in the Palace of Westminster. It is interesting to note that only 600 hon. Members do so. However, we have not taken the matter any further. Therefore, we must set down the criteria against which future planning can be carried out.
While I have the ear of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, may I make a plea for progress on 1, Cannon Row? It was expected that it would be completed in the autumn of 1988, but the completion date is now stretching into the middle distance, which will create pressure and exacerbate the difficulties that we have been talking about tonight. In the meantime, I hope that we will exercise that self-denying ordinance.

Mr. David Winnick: The last point at least of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) will be unanimously agreed. Many strongly held views have been expressed today. The debate has been marred only by the obnoxious contribution by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on many matters. However much I have disagreed with him, I have never before had occasion to describe a speech made by him as obnoxious. His contribution today was certainly in that category. It was out of tune with the seriousness of the debate. The time will come, I think, when even the hon. Gentleman will recognise that fact.
Your position is not in doubt, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that those of us who elected you to the Chair should not have done so if we now had any criticism of the security pass procedure. That is not the position at all. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that his comments

were irrelevant. The debate centres on a citizen's right to some kind of redress against being refused a security pass and thus being denied the right to work on these premises.
It will not come as any surprise, at least to my hon. Friends, to hear me say that there is clearly a need for security at the Palace of Westminster. That is not in dispute. I have never protested, and I do not know of anyone who has, about the police requesting security passes—even hon. Members passes—from time to time. I should qualify that statement. The only person who has ever so questioned to my knowledge was Mr. Enoch Powell, who did not, I understand, wish to be asked for his pass. Perhaps he considered that he should be recognised, and that was that. It is quite appropriate that the police, on duty and carrying out their responsibilities, should try to make sure that those who come within the premises have a right to do so. That is not in any doubt.
Undoubtedly, any terrorist action that would be taken here would be considered a victory by the Provisional IRA. If it were able to explode a bomb anywhere within the Palace of Westminster, we can rest assured that it would not offer the kind of weasel apology that it made after last Sunday's atrocity. There is no doubt that we are faced with an onslaught of terrorism, and have been so faced for the past 17 years. The House is an important terrorist target. The need for security is in no doubt.
There is no doubt also about the need for a security service. There are aspects though about which I am far from happy. Even if a terrorist campaign were not being directed against our citizens and political democracy, we would still need a security service. I know of no democracy that does not have some such body. But, at the moment, we must query the political impartiality of the services. The matter does not relate only to Mr. Wright's book. Prior to that book, allegations were made by a former employee of MI5, Cathy Massiter. As I have asked previously on the Floor of the House, is it alleged that she lied when she made most serious allegations about the type of abuse that occurred?

Ms. Clare Short: What about Mrs. Haig?

Mr. Winnick: During an Adjournment debate, I mentioned that lady, who lives in Sutton Coldfield in the west midlands. That place is not, of course, in my constituency, but the matter related to an important issue of civil liberties.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), the Secretary of State for Employment, took up the matter and carried out his responsibilities as a constituency Member of Parliament. The reply that he received from the chief constable was along the lines that Mrs. Haig had not been investigated by the special branch. It was only Mrs. Haig's persistence that prompted the right hon. Gentleman again to write to the chief constable, and that brought out the fact that the police had lied. That factor caused us great concern. I raised it during the Select Committee inquiry and was responsible for writing a minority report of the Committee on the special branch.
We must recognise that many people in this country, and certainly in the House, simply do not accept that, at this moment, the security services are as impartial as they should be. Indeed, from time to time one cannot help asking whether any senior officials at all in MI5 or MI6 actually vote Labour.

Ms. Clare Short: Certainly not.

Mr. Winnick: The reply to that question is obvious, as my hon. Friend has said.
I recognise, as I have said, the need for effective security here and for a security service. I recognise also that, perhaps, there is some slight disagreement between my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and myself, that sometimes measures have to be taken. We must take such measures which protect not only ourselves but all those who work here. We have responsibility for everyone who works here. On occasions we may have to say that, for various security reasons, A, B or C may not be able to be employed here. That is the essence of the matter. It we must take such action, which we do not like but which is necessary in the climate in which we live, it is necessary for people to have some redress. It may be said that that is a reflection on Mr. Speaker. It is not a reflection on the occupant of the Chair. I do not know what sort of documentation Mr. Speaker has received. As I understand it, he has not seen all the documents. Perhaps there is no need for him to do so.
One thing is absolutely clear: if we leave the matter as it is and Mr. Speaker is given certain responsibilities, we shall bring about an invidious position. It is like questioning Mr. Speaker's impartiality. Moreover, if Mr. Speaker comes to a certain conclusion, it is difficult, except by way of a point of order or, in extreme cases, a motion of censure, to raise the matter on the Floor of the House. At the end of the day, it is far better for such matters to go to Select Committee. A Select Committee may come to a conclusion with which I disagree, but it is quite likely that there will be an opportunity for that Select Committee's report to be debated on the Floor of the House, and we may raise the subject at that time.
At the moment, we have the case of Mr. Bennett, whom I do not know from Adam. Like most people, I had never heard of the gentleman before all the publicity arose. He has been tarred and smeared. In effect, he has been told that he has no right to work here because he is a security risk. He may be a security risk; I do not know. How am I to judge? If we believe in democracy, the democratic process and the fact that every citizen in our country has a right to be heard, it is important that Mr. Bennett is heard. What right has Mr. Bennett to be heard at this stage?
That is why the reasoned amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) should be accepted by the Leader of the House. If the amendment is accepted, to a large extent the problems with which we are now dealing can be overcome.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I have listened with great interest to many contributions that have been made. Some contributions have strayed from the point of the debate. I take the House back to an interesting and carefully chosen analysis of events by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). He took us through the chronology of events. As I understand it, Mr. Bennett was originally convicted of a crime and was subsequently cleared when he appealed. Thereafter, a story appeared in the News of the World. That chronology is important.
Opposition Members seem to take the view that the News of the World story was leaked in some way by the security services. I declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists. It is not beyond the wit of journalists to recognise a conviction in open court and

then, indeed, to recognise that a conviction has been quashed on appeal. I do not believe for one moment that the News of the World story appeared as a consequence of a leak. One must be a subscriber to a conspiracy theory to believe that. I prefer to believe that journalists are capable of doing their own leg work. We are all agreed that we need checks on individuals. However, I was concerned at the admission by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that checks take place after a pass has been issued to the person applying. It would be far more sensible to apply the checks or vetting process before the pass was issued.
That brings me to another important but difficult problem. While it may be possible for the police to make inquiries relating to British subjects, I am a little worried about the kind of checks that they might be able to undertake on foreigners. I hope that that matter will be considered.
I am worried, too, about one difficult problem—all hon. Members agree that it is difficult—in relation to the disclosure of secret information and advice to the Speaker from whatever source. Clearly, the public disclosure of the sources of such information, whether to a Committee or to the House, would jeopardise those sources. Indeed, if it was believed that the sources were to be compromised, they would dry up. One of our key dilemmas relates specifically to the disclosure of sources. In an intervention earlier in the debate, I mentioned that lives could be put at risk, and I do not believe that to be an exaggeration.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Allason: I shall finish my speech in a moment.
The question of false allegations is very important. We are faced with a difficult dilemma in having to assess information from very secret sources. I urge the House to rely on Mr. Speaker's judgment in this matter rather than on numbers. The Speaker is trusted— —

Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Allason: I will not give way, because I am about to finish. Mr. Speaker is trusted in many areas and this is one essential area where our trust should continue.
The motion, and indeed the amendment, deal with material risk to the House. I urge the House to err on the side of caution and on the side of safety, and I commend the motion to the House.

Ms. Clare Short: I shall be brief, because I do not want to curtail the wind-up speeches. We are all agreed that this is a serious matter which potentially diminishes our liberty and the liberty of the individuals whom we seek to employ. The argument of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is deeply flawed. It is perfectly possible to reveal what is alleged against an individual without revealing its source.

Mr. Allason: No.

Ms. Short: Of course it is. I think that you, Mr. Speaker, should be very cautious about accepting the power that is being handed to you. I find it deeply objectionable that an accused person should have no chance to answer the allegations against him. That is a breach of the fundamental principle of natural justice. It is absolutely unacceptable. You, Mr. Speaker, would bring


your office into disrepute if you accepted the responsibility being offered to you. At the very least, you should require the right to share with an hon. Member the allegations against the person whom that hon. Member seeks to employ and to get the answers back before making your decision. If you do not do that, you may involve yourself in a possible injustice.
I am perhaps one of the few hon. Members who has been positively vetted. In the course of my positive vetting for the Civil Service, I had a special session with an officer of the special branch on the subject of my father and his attitudes. My father, who died last year, was an Irish Republican who believed that Ireland should never have been partitioned. He was committed to that belief throughout his life. However, he spent most of his life as a teacher in Birmingham. He was an absolute democrat, although he argued his case passionately. The special branch came close to failing to approve me as a member of the Civil Service because of my father's views about the situation in Ireland. My father was never engaged in any kind of violent or subversive action. Nevertheless, I was on the border line. In our present climate, if someone with identical views to my father sought employment with an hon. Member, his application would be stopped. That would be outrageous.
We are talking not only about civil liberties but about political freedom. Northern Ireland is a deep issue for the House. This week, of all weeks, we should know that. We have not found a solution. People are still dying. Britain has created a mess in Ireland and it is our duty to seek to solve the problem. If anyone who raises the subject of Ireland is regarded as politically illegitimate and if we are not allowed to employ people who are concerned with Ireland, we shall distort our democracy.
I once employed as a temporary research assistant a young man who comes from Iran. He approached me and told me that his sister had been tortured and killed in an Iranian prison. He sought the support of hon. Members from both sides of the House for a resolution to be sent to the United Nations calling for an end to the Iran-Iraq war. I got a temporary pass for him. He sought the signatures and left this place and nothing improper was alleged. I know that he was checked out because our ex-Deputy Chief Whip had words with me. An hon. Member might have sought to place an individual in the House who did, indeed, have nefarious purposes. That is why I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that hon. Members and only hon. Members should vet. We could be used by someone who wanted to cause trouble here. However, it is crucial that any vetting should be fair and that every individual should be given the chance to answer any allegations. That is why I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, whatever the outcome of the vote, not to involve yourself in a diminution of our democracy or in the restriction of the freedom of those who hold perfectly legitimate views that are considered unacceptable by the security services. You should not prevent such people from working for us, because if you do so, we shall all be diminished and our potential for solving the problems in Northern Ireland will be diminished.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) will forgive me if I do not follow her down that path.
There are three issues to be considered. The first is the constitutional issue dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). The second is the philosophical issue and the question whether, as hon. Members, we have a right to employ whom we please on the premises of this House. I do not believe that we have that right. We must take into account the interests of all hon. Members and the interests of the staff. We should not support the proposition that we have that novel right.
There are two practical reasons why we should support the motion. First, on the question of security information, it is no use saying that one can give such information at all times because sometimes by giving information one reveals its source. Some information could have come from only one source. To give information in those circumstances would be to endanger our security officers. Secondly, we should consider not just the physical security of this building, mentioned by the hon. Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) but the security of hon. Members while they are outside the building. We cannot allow an associate of the IRA to go round parts of the building that are not open to the public and into hon. Members' offices where he could photograph their itineraries and find out where they are going outside the House. In all this, I am thinking especially of Northern Ireland hon. Members and of Robert Bradford who was assassinated only a few years ago. We cannot allow known supporters of the IRA to have the access to hon. Members' offices that a pass affords.
I am mindful of the time, but I shall finish with the challenge that I wanted to extend to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who I note is not here. It is interesting how Opposition Members talk about the rights of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is here".] He may be here now, but he has not been here for the past three-quarters of an hour. We are talking about the rights of the House and hon. Members go off to talk to the press. Does the hon. Gentleman know whether Mr. Bennett has been a known associate of the IRA—because all the information we have is that he has?

Mr. Corbyn: Where is the information from?

Mr. Bennett: It is the information that the security services have. The hon. Gentleman should tell us what he knows about Mr. Bennett's background.

Mr. Wakeham: I shall not detain the House long. We are about to reach a decision. We have had a constructive debate and I am glad that the House has been united in its condemnation of terrorism. I am glad that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) is able to support our motion. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) for his typically graceful and telling intervention.
The case that we have presented to the House is that you, Mr. Speaker, have a personal responsibility for our security within these precincts. You have that responsibility by virtue of your office and you assumed it when you were elected to the Chair. I agree with my hon. Friend the


Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). If anybody wishes to look at "Erskine May" on this matter he should look at page 219. The entry follows from the decisions made in 1965.
I shall not attempt to improve on the case made out by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). He argued with great clarity that having entrusted you, Mr. Speaker, with those responsibilities, among many others which are as difficult, the House should not seek to interfere with your judgment. That would weaken your authority and the whole House would be the loser thereby.
I note the difficulty that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) found in answering those who asked him what sort of person he would find to be unsuitable as a research assistant. I recognise that he, too, would like to run a House of Commons that is secure, but I am bound to say that many of his remarks were out of touch with reality.
I found much with which to agree in the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). However, he did not make the case for the substantial change in responsibility for our security that he is urging upon us. I am satisfied that our security is best entrusted to you, Mr. Speaker, and that it is best left to your discretion to seek advice as you choose whether from hon. Members on either side of the House or from those outside who can give you that information.
Opposition Members made a great deal of the publicity about Mr. Ronan Bennett. I made it clear in response to an intervention that I believe that those matters are better dealt with in private and that the publicity the case has received is to be regretted.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House now tell the House whether he will institute an investigation into how the information concerning Mr. Bennett's employment was given first to the News of the World and secondly to The Sunday Times?

Mr. Wakeham: That is the subject of the debate and it is not for me to institute an inquiry. I have neither the means nor the power to do so. I regret the publicity that was given. I also made it clear — I think that it was generally accepted in the House — that there is no difficulty with the continued employment by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) of his research assistant if he chooses. The issue is different. It is about free and unescorted access to the House and on that we have to accept your judgment, Mr. Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) spoke to his amendment with skill and authority. As I have made clear, the Government are happy to support it and for the Services Committee to be asked to look at the number of research assistants. That issue has been of concern for some time and I appreciate my hon. Friend's reminder that the Services Committee should now turn to it again.
I am content to accept the manuscript amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). I accept the logic of his argument that the Services Committee should spread its inquiry beyond research assistants to embrace Members' personal staff. I look forward to the Committee getting under way.
The issues before us are clear cut. I ask the House to endorse the steps taken in the interest of our security and to set in hand the work on the wider implications.

Amendment (a) proposed, to leave out from first House", to end and add:
`rejects the recommendation in the Second Report of the Services Committee, Session 1984–85, on security, on the grounds that it would infringe the principles of Parliamentary democracy, under which electors must have the right to elect the Members whom they choose, and honourable Members must have an equal right to employ whoever they wish to assist them with their Parliamentary duties; knows of no powers that this House has, has ever had, or could legitimately, take or assume, to determine who may work for an honourable Member in the Palace of Westminster ; believes that the withdrawal of the pass issued to Mr. Ronan Bennett has publicly, and unjustly, identified him as a potential threat to national security, without any evidence having been disclosed, or any hearing or trial, whereby he, personally, has suffered a serious injury ; warns that, if the security services are permitted to vet any person, including staff. lobby correspondents, or honourable Members, and effectively veto them, fundamental civil and democratic liberties will be eroded to the point where those affected would become licensed by the Crown, its ministers and servants, thus reversing centuries of struggle by the people of the United Kingdom through this House to gain control of the Executive, and hold it accountable for its actions; and therefore demands the immediate restoration of the pass to Mr. Ronan Bennett, and the complete discontinuation of the present, and wholly unauthorised, practice of vetting those who work in, and for, this House and its Members'.—[Mr. Benn.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 274.

Division No. 43]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Litherland, Robert


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Livingstone, Ken


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Loyden, Eddie


Battle, John
McAllion, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McCartney, Ian


Boateng, Paul
McKelvey, William


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Madden, Max


Buchan, Norman
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Meale, Alan


Canavan, Dennis
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cohen, Harry
Patchett, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Cousins, Jim
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Cryer, Bob
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Skinner, Dennis


Duffy, A. E. P.
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Flannery, Martin
Wall, Pat


Galloway, George
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)



Heffer, Eric S.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hinchliffe, David
Mr. Bob Clay and Mr. Chris Mullin.


Hood, James



Hoyle, Doug





NOES


Adley, Robert
Beith, A. J.


Aitken, Jonathan
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Alexander, Richard
Bevan, David Gilroy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Allason, Rupert
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Alton, David
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Ashby, David
Brazier, Julian


Ashdown, Paddy
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Robert
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Atkinson, David
Browne, John (Winchester)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buck, Sir Antony


Beggs, Roy
Burns, Simon






Burt, Alistair
Holt, Richard


Butler, Chris
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Howard, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cartwright, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Chapman, Sydney
Howells, Geraint


Chope, Christopher
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cope, John
Irvine, Michael


Couchman, James
Janman, Timothy


Cran, James
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Curry, David
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Day, Stephen
Kilfedder, James


Devlin, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkwood, Archy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knowles, Michael


Evennett, David
Knox, David


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lang, Ian


Fallon, Michael
Latham, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan


Favell, Tony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fearn, Ronald
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lightbown, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lilley, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Livsey, Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lord, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
McCrindle, Robert


Gale, Roger
Macfarlane, Neil


Gardiner, George
MacGregor, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gill, Christopher
Maclennan, Robert


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McLoughlin, Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mans, Keith


Gorst, John
Maples, John


Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Mates, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Ground, Patrick
Miller, Hal


Grylls, Michael
Mills, Iain


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Miscampbell, Norman


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Roger


Hannam, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Harris, David
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Christopher
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hayes, Jerry
Moss, Malcolm


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hayward, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Michael


Heddle, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Onslow, Cranley


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Page, Richard


Hind, Kenneth
Paice, James





Patnick, Irvine
Stern, Michael


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Stevens, Lewis


Pawsey, James
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Sumberg, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Summerson, Hugo


Portillo, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Price, Sir David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Raffan, Keith
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Temple-Morris, Peter


Redwood, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Renton, Tim
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thornton, Malcolm


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Riddick, Graham
Tracey, Richard


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Trippier, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rowe, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Sackville, Hon Tom
Ward, John


Scott, Nicholas
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Watts, John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shersby, Michael
Wilshire, David


Sims, Roger
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Nicholas


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wood, Timothy


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Speed, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Richard Ryder and Mr. David Maclean.


Steen, Anthony

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question on following related amendments pursuant to order of the House [6 November].

Amendment (b) proposed, to leave out from first "House" to end and add
'recognising the dilemmas confronting Parliament in the face of the continuing threat of terrorism, is determined that terrorists shall not be allowed to intimidate people, nor undermine democracy, and therefore, firmly believing that security must be maintained, considers that decisions on the safety of the House must be left to the decisions of the House itself and not to any other authorities; is concerned that important aspects of the arrangements for security of the House and the people working in it have no clear authority from the House, put Mr. Speaker in an invidious position, leave judgments on the security of the House in the hands of a branch of Government and can undermine the civil liberties of an individual by providing no redress for any person accused of being a threat to the security of the House; therefore calls for all aspects of the safety of the House, and the rights and duties of Members in relation to it, to be considered by the Privileges Committee and the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), in order to secure the maximum degree of physical safety of those working in the Palace of Westminster and others, compatible with the need to preserve the rights of honourable Members and free access to the House by the public, through procedures permitting evaluation by the House of information furnished by the Metropolitan Police; and declares that matters relating to the safety of this House must remain the exclusive responsibility of this House.'—[Mr. Dobson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 269.

Division No. 44]
[7.11 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ingram, Adam


Allen, Graham
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Leighton, Ron


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Battle, John
Lewis, Terry


Beckett, Margaret
Litherland, Robert


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Livingstone, Ken


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Blair, Tony
McAllion, John


Boateng, Paul
McCartney, Ian


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Macdonald, Calum


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
McFall, John


Buchan, Norman
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Buckley, George
McKelvey, William


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McWilliam, John


Canavan, Dennis
Madden, Max


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Clay, Bob
Mallon, Seamus


Clelland, David
Marek, Dr John


Cohen, Harry
Maxton, John


Coleman, Donald
Meale, Alan


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Michael, Alun


Corbett, Robin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cousins, Jim
Morgan, Rhodri


Crowther, Stan
Morley, Elliott


Cryer. Bob
Mullin, Chris


Dalyell, Tam
Murphy, Paul


Darling, Alastair
O'Brien, William


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
O'Neill, Martin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dewar, Donald
Patchett, Terry


Dixon, Don
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dobson, Frank
Prescott, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Quin, Ms Joyce


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Reid, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Fatchett, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Rooker, Jeff


Fisher, Mark
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Flannery, Martin
Rowlands, Ted


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Foster, Derek
Salmond, Alex


Foulkes, George
Sheerman, Barry


Fraser, John
Short, Clare


Fyle, Mrs Maria
Skinner, Dennis


Galloway, George
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


George, Bruce
Snape, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Soley, Clive


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Steinberg, Gerald


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Stott, Roger


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Strang, Gavin


Grocott, Bruce
Straw, Jack


Hardy, Peter
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Wall, Pat


Heffer, Eric S.
Wareing, Robert N.


Hinchliffe, David
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Holland, Stuart
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Home Robertson, John
Wilson, Brian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hoyle, Doug



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Mr. David Winnick and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Illsley, Eric





NOES


Adley, Robert
Alison, Rt Hon Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Allason, Rupert


Alexander, Richard
Alton, David





Amess, David
Gorst, John


Arbuthnot, James
Gow, Ian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Ashby, David
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Atkins, Robert
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Atkinson, David
Gregory, Conal


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Baldry, Tony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Ground, Patrick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Grylls, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hanley, Jeremy


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hannam, John


Boswell, Tim
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bottomley, Peter
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bowis, John
Harris, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hawkins, Christopher


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hayes, Jerry


Brazier, Julian
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bright, Graham
Hayward, Robert


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Browne, John (Winchester)
Heddle, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Buck, Sir Antony
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Burns, Simon
Hind, Kenneth


Burt, Alistair
Holt, Richard


Butler, Chris
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Howard, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cartwright, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Chapman, Sydney
Howells, Geraint


Chope, Christopher
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Colvin, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Janman, Timothy


Cope, John
Jessel, Toby


Couchman, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James
Johnston, Sir Russell


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Curry, David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kilfedder, James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Kirkwood, Archy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Eggar, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knox, David


Evennett, David
Lang, Ian


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Latham, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Farr, Sir John
Lee, John (Pendle)


Favell, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fearn, Ronald
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Li I ley, Peter


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Livsey, Richard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus
Macfarlane, Neil


Freeman, Roger
MacGregor, John


French, Douglas
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David


Gardiner, George
Maclennan, Robert


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maples, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul






Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Shersby, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sims, Roger


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Miller, Hal
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mills, Iain
Speed, Keith


Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moate, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stern, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Stevens, Lewis


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Sumberg, David


Moss, Malcolm
Summerson, Hugo


Moynihan, Hon C.
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Page, Richard
Thornton, Malcolm


Paice, James
Thurnham, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Tracey, Richard


Pawsey, James
Tredinnick, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trippier, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Portillo, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Powell, William (Corby)
Walker, Bill (Tside North)


Price, Sir David
Waller, Gary


Raffan, Keith
Ward, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Redwood, John
Warren, Kenneth


Rhodes James, Robert
Watts, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wheeler, John


Riddick, Graham
Whitney, Ray


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


Ritkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Nicholas


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sackville, Hon Tom



Scott, Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')



Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment (c) proposed, at end add
`and in particular to consider whether the numbers of research assistants with access to the precincts of the House should be reduced, bearing in mind the pressure on the capacity of the facilities of the House.'—[Mr. Onslow.]

Manuscript amendment to proposed amendment proposed, leave out "research assistants" and insert "Members' personal staff".—[Mr. Colin Shepherd.]

Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 107.

Division No. 45]
[7.24 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Ashby, David


Alexander, Richard
Atkins, Robert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkinson, David


Allason, Rupert
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Beggs, Roy





Beith, A. J.
Harris, David


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hawkins, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hayes, Jerry


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Boswell, Tim
Hayward, Robert


Bowis, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Heddle, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brazier, Julian
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bright, Graham
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hind, Kenneth


Browne, John (Winchester)
Holt, Richard


Burns, Simon
Hordern, Sir Peter


Burt, Alistair
Howard, Michael


Butler, Chris
Howarth, Alan (Strafd-on-A)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Carrington, Matthew
Howells, Geraint


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Chope, Christopher
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Janman, Timothy


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cope, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Couchman, James
Kilfedder, James


Cran, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kirkhope, Timothy


Curry, David
Knapman, Roger


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knowles, Michael


Day, Stephen
Knox, David


Devlin, Tim
Lang, Ian


Dorrell, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Ivan


Durant, Tony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Eggar, Tim
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Evennett, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lightbown, David


Fallon, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Farr, Sir John
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Freeman, Roger
Mans, Keith


French, Douglas
Maples, John


Gale, Roger
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, George
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Miller, Hal


Gorst, John
Mills, Iain


Gow, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Roger


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Gregory, Conal
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Moore, Rt Hon John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Ground, Patrick
Moss, Malcolm


Grylls, Michael
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Hannam, John
Onslow, Cranley


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Page, Richard


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Paice, James






Patnick, Irvine
Stevens, Lewis


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Pawsey, James
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Sumberg, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Summerson, Hugo


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Portillo, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Price, Sir David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Redwood, John
Thurnham, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tracey, Richard


Riddick, Graham
Tredinnick, David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trippier, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rowe, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Ryder, Richard
Ward, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Scott, Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, David (Dover)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wheeler, John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Whitney, Ray


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Shersby, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Sims, Roger
Wilshire, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Nicholas


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wood, Timothy


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Speed, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Colin Shepherd and Mr. Robert Adley.


Steen, Anthony



Stern, Michael





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foulkes, George


Allen, Graham
Fraser, John


Alton, David
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Ashdown, Paddy
George, Bruce


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Battle, John
Grocott, Bruce


Beckett, Margaret
Hardy, Peter


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Hinchliffe, David


Boateng, Paul
Home Robertson, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Buckley, George
Illsley, Eric


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ingram, Adam


Canavan, Dennis
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kirkwood, Archy


Cohen, Harry
Leighton, Ron


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lewis, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell, Tarn
Livingstone, Ken


Darling, Alastair
Livsey, Richard


Dewar, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dobson, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Duffy, A. E. P.
McAllion, John


Eastham, Ken
Macdonald, Calum


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McFall, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McKelvey, William


Fatchett, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Fearn, Ronald
McNamara, Kevin


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Madden, Max


Flannery, Martin
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Foster, Derek
Maxton, John





Meale, Alan
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Snape, Peter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Soley, Clive


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Strang, Gavin


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Patchett, Terry
Wall, Pat


Reid, John
Wareing, Robert N.


Richardson, Ms Jo
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Winnick, David


Rooker, Jeff
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Ruddock, Ms Joan
Tellers for the Noes:


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Bob Clay.


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put. That the amendment, as amended, be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes, 114.

Division No. 46]
[7.35 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Eggar, Tim


Aitken, Jonathan
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Alexander, Richard
Evennett, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fallon, Michael


Amess, David
Farr, Sir John


Arbuthnot, James
Favell, Tony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ashby, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkins, Robert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, David
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forth, Eric


Beggs, Roy
Fox, Sir Marcus


Beith, A. J.
Freeman, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
French, Douglas


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gale, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gardiner, George


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bowis, John
Gill, Christopher


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry (Baling N)


Butler, Chris
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Cartwright, John
Ground, Patrick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grylls, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Chope, Christopher
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hanley, Jeremy


Colvin, Michael
Hannam, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Cope, John
Harris, David


Couchman, James
Hawkins, Christopher


Cran, James
Hayes, Jerry


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Curry, David
Hayward, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Heddle, John


Day, Stephen
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Dorrell, Stephen
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hind, Kenneth


Dunn, Bob
Holt, Richard


Durant, Tony
Howard, Michael






Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Redwood, John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rhodes James, Robert


Howells, Geraint
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Irvine, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Janman, Timothy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Richard


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Scott, Nicholas


Kilfedder, James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knowles, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Knox, David
Sims, Roger


Lang, Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Latham, Michael
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lawrence, Ivan
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Speed, Keith


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Speller, Tony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lightbown, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lilley, Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Macfarlane, Neil
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


MacGregor, John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sumberg, David


Maclean, David
Summerson, Hugo


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maples, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thurnham, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Miller, Hal
Tredinnick, David


Mills, Iain
Trippier, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moate, Roger
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Waller, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Ward, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Nelson, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Neubert, Michael
Watts, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wheeler, John


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Whitney, Ray


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Paice, James
Wilshire, David


Patnick, Irvine
Winterton, Nicholas


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wood, Timothy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Yeo, Tim


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Porter, David (Waveney)



Portillo, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. Cranley Onslow and Mr. Jerry Wiggin.


Price, Sir David



Raffan, Keith





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)


Allen, Graham
Battle, John


Alton, David
Beckett, Margaret


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Ashdown, Paddy
Boateng, Paul


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bray, Dr Jeremy





Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Livsey, Richard


Buchan, Norman
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Buckley, George
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Loyden, Eddie


Canavan, Dennis
McAllion, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McCartney, Ian


Clay, Bob
Macdonald, Calum


Clelland, David
McFall, John


Cohen, Harry
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McKelvey, William


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McLeish, Henry


Corbyn, Jeremy
McNamara, Kevin


Cousins, Jim
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Crowther, Stan
Maxton, John


Dalyell, Tam
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Darling, Alastair
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dewar, Donald
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dobson, Frank
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mullin, Chris


Eastham, Ken
O'Brien, William


Evans, John (St Helens N)
O'Neill, Martin


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Patchett, Terry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Prescott, John


Fatchett, Derek
Reid, John


Fearn, Ronald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Flannery, Martin
Rooker, Jeff


Foster, Derek
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Foulkes, George
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Fraser, John
Salmond, Alex


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Short, Clare


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Skinner, Dennis


George, Bruce
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Snape, Peter


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Soley, Clive


Grocott, Bruce
Steinberg, Gerald


Hardy, Peter
Strang, Gavin


Harman, Ms Harriet
Straw, Jack


Heffer, Eric S.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hinchliffe, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hoyle, Doug
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wall, Pat


Illsley, Eric
Wallace, James


Ingram, Adam
Wareing, Robert N.


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Kirkwood, Archy
Winnick, David


Leighton, Ron
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Litherland, Robert
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Alan Meale.


Livingstone, Ken

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question as amended put:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 103.

Division No. 47]
[7.49 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brazier, Julian


Aitken, Jonathan
Bright, Graham


Alexander, Richard
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Browne, John (Winchester)


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Butler, Chris


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, David
Cartwright, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sydney


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chope, Christopher


Beggs, Roy
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Colvin, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowis, John
Cope, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Couchman, James






Cran, James
Knowles, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knox, David


Curry, David
Lang, Ian


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spatd'g)
Latham, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lawrence, Ivan


Day, Stephen
Lee, John (Pendle)


Devlin, Tim
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lightbown, David


Dunn, Bob
Lilley, Peter


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fallon, Michael
MacGregor, John


Farr, Sir John
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Favell, Tony
Maclean, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mans, Keith


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Maples, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marland, Paul


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forth, Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fox, Sir Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Franks, Cecil
Miller, Hal


Freeman, Roger
Mills, Iain


French, Douglas
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Gardiner, George
Moate, Roger


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Gill, Christopher
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moss, Malcolm


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gorst, John
Nelson, Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Neubert, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Onslow, Cranley


Gregory, Conal
Page, Richard


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Paice, James


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Patnick, Irvine


Ground, Patrick
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Grylls, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hanley, Jeremy
Portillo, Michael


Hannam, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Price, Sir David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Raffan, Keith


Harris, David
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hawkins, Christopher
Redwood, John


Hayes, Jerry
Rhodes James, Robert


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hayward, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hind, Kenneth
Roe, Mrs Marion


Holt, Richard
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Howard, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Ryder, Richard


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Howells, Geraint
Scott, Nicholas


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Irvine, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Janman, Timothy
Sims, Roger


Jessel, Toby
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Speed, Keith


Kilfedder, James
Speller, Tony


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knapman, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Steen, Anthony





Stern, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stevens, Lewis
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Ward, John


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sumberg, David
Warren, Kenneth


Summerson, Hugo
Watts, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wheeler, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wilshire, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Tredinnick, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trippier, David



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr, Alan Howarth.


Waddington, Rt Hon David





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Alton, David
Lewis, Terry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Litherland, Robert


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Livingstone, Ken


Ashdown, Paddy
Livsey, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Battle, John
Loyden, Eddie


Beckett, Margaret
McAllion, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McCartney, Ian


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Macdonald, Calum


Boateng, Paul
McFall, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McKelvey, William


Buchan, Norman
McNamara, Kevin


Buckley, George
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Canavan, Dennis
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Clay, Bob
Mullin, Chris


Cohen, Harry
O'Brien, William


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
O'Neill, Martin


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Patchett, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Prescott, John


Crowther, Stan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dalyell, Tarn
Reid, John


Darling, Alastair
Richardson, Ms Jo


Dobson, Frank
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Eastham, Ken
Rooker, Jeff


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Fatchett, Derek
Salmond, Alex


Fearn, Ronald
Short, Clare


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Fraser, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Snape, Peter


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Soley, Clive


Golding, Mrs Llin
Steinberg, Gerald


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Strang, Gavin


Grocott, Bruce
Straw, Jack


Hardy, Peter
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Heffer, Eric S.
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Hinchliffe, David
Wall, Pat


Hoyle, Doug
Wareing, Robert N.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Winnick, David


Illsley, Eric
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ingram, Adam



Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Alan Meale.


Kirkwood, Archy



Leighton, Ron

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House endorses the application of the recommendation contained in paragraph 23 of the Second Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in Session 1984–85 (House of Commons Paper No. 195); and invites the Select Committee to consider the wider implications for control over access to the precincts of the House and in particular to consider whether the numbers of Members' personal staff with access to the precincts of the House should be reduced, bearing in mind the pressure on the capacity of the facilities of the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Doug Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will announce his findings on the British Airways—BCal merger, following the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, to the press at 9.20 tomorrow morning, prior to an announcement being made in the House. Does that not show, Mr. Speaker, the contempt of the Government for the citadel of democracy?
As you will remember, Mr. Speaker, only recently we had to drag the Chancellor of the Exchequer kicking and screaming to the House. He was more prepared to make statements to the City than he was to the elected Chamber. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to use your good offices to make sure that a statement is made to the House before it is made to the press.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,——

Mr. Speaker: Does this relate to the same point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, Mr. Speaker, it does not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will deal with these matters one at a time. I have no knowledge of this issue, as I have not seen the press and I have been in the Chair all the afternoon. The House well knows my views on the matter. The House of Commons should always be told before anyone else.

Mr. Frank Dobson: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House is here. Perhaps he can tell us if and when the Secretary of State will come to the House to tell hon. Members the outcome of the inquiry, rather than announce it to the press. He is in the Chamber now, so he has the opportunity to say something.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether you have had an opportunity to see The London Evening Standard today, but there is an article that includes a picture of you, Mr. Speaker, with the caption "Lobby Divisions." The article says:
Order call for hidden persuaders.
I rise on a point of order because I am concerned about the comments made by the article in relation to our proceedings. The article continues:
The Speaker of the Commons, Bernard Weatherill, is considering a clampdown, I hear, on the activities of parliamentary lobbyists, whose shadowy techniques include lavish hospitality and carefully packaged PR campaigns designed to influence MPs. The most conspicuous example of excess was tonight's party by P and O which was due to take place in a luxury hotel near the Commons while a debate was going on over a Bill directly affecting the company.

You will know, of course Mr. Speaker, that we are about to debate the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill.
What worries me, Mr. Speaker, is that the article continues:
He has received plenty of complaints for example about the tactics used by British Airways and British Caledonian."—
and obviously there are many other examples—
The Speaker, though, could tackle the whole issue the other way round by insisting on a register in which Members of Parliament would have to own up to every freebie that they have had from virtually anyone, as members of Congress are supposed to do in America.
The journalist who wrote that story was clearly very diligent in his duties, but what he might have misunderstood is the fact that the Speaker does not have such powers. They do not rest in the Chair at all. Indeed, any changes in these areas would have to be brought about by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, whether it be the Services Committee or the Committee on Members' Interests. The problem is that, even there, powers to make recommendations on functions taking place outside the House are limited. Indeed, some might say that it was impossible for us to take action in these areas. Therefore, it is incumbent upon hon. Members to conduct themselves responsibly and ensure that they are not tempted in this way by the lavish facilities that have been laid on this evening.
On this occasion the event surfaced publicly because a journalist was able to identify this freebie and frighten off hon. Members. However, we do not know whether this is common practice at Westminster. There might be other Bills going through the House of Commons that are equally subject to this sort of lavish entertainment. When we do not know what is going on, we are unable to assess the impact of lavish entertainment on a Bill. On this occasion, P and O was found out, and because of that the entertainment has been cancelled.
I should he grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would guide hon. Members so that we can ensure—I do intend to end this point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: I would not stop the hon. Member.[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member has not quite finished.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that when you read the article—I have read only a small part of It — and indeed articles in The Independent yesterday and in The Sunday Times, you might care to take a view on these matters and advise hon. Members that it is not correct for them to conduct themselves in such a way, and accept lavish entertainment, which clearly interferes with the process of legislation and the proceedings of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the article referred to by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) refers to me, I should like the hon. Gentleman and indeed the whole House to know that I have not seen the article. Certainly no one at all from The London Evening Standard has been in touch with me. Anything that is said in the article is completely erroneous.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just had a debate on the question of people getting into this building who have not been vetted, tested or verified in some way, organised by a committee which on occasions might report some of the


details to you, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I want to know whether these people can finish up in the Jubilee Room. Apparently, that is where they are now—it was to have been held in a hotel, according to the papers, but now they have taken over the Jubilee Room—and the plan is that they will invite Tory Members who support the Bill, during the course of the night, to help them stay the night so that they can get on with their corrupt dealings.
I want to know, Mr. Speaker, what steps you are taking in view of the debate that has gone on for three hours to find out who these people are. If it is right for research assistants and other personal staff, and all the rest, to be checked out by this committee that people know very little about, somebody should be hot-footing it down there to see who is running this show, which is encouraging Members of Parliament to do what they might not do if they were in a sober state.
There is another serious question that my hon. Friends might he dwelling on with regard to whether those who go to the Jubilee Room to be wined and dined and take part in the juncketing organised by P and O should vote on any clauses and amendments to the Bill. One of your predecessors said during proceedings on the Lloyd's Bill that it would be wise for Members of Parliament with a direct interest in Lloyd's to consider whether they should vote. In this case P and O is wining and dining Tory Members, encouraging them to stay the night when otherwise they might not. None of the people who organised that party has been vetted and it is high time that the matter was looked into by yourself.

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for hon. Members who may wish to take a drink in any room of the House, as long as they do not take it in the Chamber. I cannot be held responsible for what goes on in privately booked dining rooms, or, indeed, for what may go on outside the House.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Futher to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. Clearly this matter should be thoroughly investigated. If there were clear evidence that a company or an individual was seeking to buy a Member's vote in the House, surely that would be a breach of privilege. If there are suggestions that the purpose of the party is to make sure that people are here to vote, that is getting close to buying hon. Members' votes. In such circumstances, should not the Chairman of Ways and Means be asked whether the following business should be withdrawn until the matter is properly cleared up?

Mr. Speaker: Since that is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, and since I have been in the Chair since half-past two, I shall let him deal with it.

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment—[23 July]—in page 2, to leave out lines 15 to 18.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Within your hearing, Mr. Speaker said that he would not respond to my point of order since it was a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means and he would leave you to deal with it. In case you were out of earshot, my point, which bears repeating, was that if it became known that a company or individual had offered money directly to a Member in order to persuade him, or to buy his vote, I am sure that that would be a breach of privilege which would be reported to the Privileges Committee. A Member who fell into such temptation would be seriously dealt with.
Since the purpose of the party — which has been called off from wherever it was due to be held outside the House, and in some senses this is worse, is now to be held inside the House — is to ensure that Members are in their place to vote for a Bill, that must be perilously close to being a breach of privilege. I urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if it is within your power, to postpone tonight's business until the matter is properly disposed of.
Let me draw an analogy with what happens in local government. I know that Conservative Members are particularly strong on this point because they believe that the purposes of local government are being subverted by treats, the lavish spending of money, and so on. I can assure you, with my long experience, that if anything like this happened in local government, not only would I be severely chastised but I would land up going to prison for voting on issues in respect of which I had been given money from a private source and on which I had not declared an interest.
This is a matter of great seriousness and I raise it in no sense of levity. I ask you seriously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to postpone tonight's business until the matter is cleared up, either by direct reference to the Privileges Committee or by you making your own inquiries.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I think that I can help the House by dealing with the additional point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I clearly have nothing to add to what Mr. Speaker said a few moments ago, in the hearing of the House and of me, that functions that take place outside are not the concern of the Chair. The Chair has no power over those. The hon. Gentleman has now raised the additional point of whether a matter of privilege is involved. The hon. Gentleman and the House know that if they feel that a matter of privilege is involved, they should follow the procedure that is clearly laid down—to write to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may be able to shed some more light on the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will be as shocked as I was to hear that over the weekend I received an invitation to the shindig that we are discussing. It would be worthwhile to read that invitation to the House. It is in the name of 11 hon. Members, so it is definitely a matter for the Chair at the very least.
The invitation says:
Last-minute reminder. Felixstowe Bill. Tomorrow night (Tuesday) this Bill will be carried—or die. Votes will take place from 7 pm onwards. Batting order. It is hoped that one closure motion (and vote) will be accepted by the Chair at approximately 8 pm"—
that is a discourtesy to the Chair at the very least. The invitation goes on:
A second closure, with further votes, will be sought at approximately 9.30 pm"—
to be perfectly fair, "sought" is underlined—
but this cannot be guaranteed. At 10 pm we need to carry a vote to suspend the rule. Thereafter votes on up to six more possible closures, each requiring the presence of not less than 100 Members may be expected until a late hour.
Now comes the part to which I and my hon. Friends object the most. This is what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover would call the bribery bit. It says:
Refreshments. From 10.30 pm you are most cordially invited to a late-night champagne supper party at the St. James's Court Hotel. Wives are most welcome too. There will be film shows from midnight onwards. Buses will be available to ferry Members to and from St. James's to the House. A further hospitality suite will be available in the Jubilee Room, off Westminster Hall, for colleagues who might prefer to wait there between some of the divisions. Your support in the lobbies until this Bill has been secured is most earnestly requested—and appreciated. Thank you.
That invitation bears the names of 11 Members. I shall not mention them on the Floor of the House, but I shall give you the document, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to be discourteous as they were, and I did not have time to tell them that I would be raising this matter in the House tonight. Opposition Members have standards and in these queries to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are trying to uphold the honour of the House. The matters that we have raised should be investigated by you and a ruling given.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall listen to those hon. Members who have been rising, but I want to remind the House that we have a lot of business ahead of us. Mr. Speaker has given a clear ruling in one regard and I have given, I hope, a clear ruling with regard to the procedure for an alleged breach of privilege. There really is nothing more that the Chair can add, but I shall listen to the two hon. Members who are rising and then I hope that we can get on with the debate.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope, first of all, that you can confirm that the unofficial Whip has not been issued with any collusion with the Chair and that there is no suggestion that closures will be agreed at the times suggested by that unofficial Whip. Secondly, I want to raise questions about the hospitality.
Mr. Speaker suggested that what happened with regard to the wining and dining of hon. Members to encourage them to vote in a particular way was none of his concern. I realise that Mr. Speaker has no responsibility over those functions. However, he must uphold the dignity of the House. I suggest that the activities of P and O have brought the House into disrepute. I am delighted that P and O has cancelled the party across the road. There seems to be some doubt whether the hospitality will continue in the Jubilee Room. However, I received in the post today a letter from Hampshire county council which is

promoting another private Bill. In that letter, the council invites hon. Members to participate in refreshments in the not-too-distant future.
It seems that there is a tendency for those promoting private Bills to adopt a new style. I am well aware that in the 18th and 19th centuries, when Canal Bills and Railway Bills were passing through the House, there was all manner of bribery and corruption. However, that seemed to have disappeared with regard to private Bills.
You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that with another place we have set up a Joint Committee to look into private Bill procedures. I should have thought that it would be appropriate for that Committee to consider the whole question of wining and dining hon. Members in connection with the private Bill procedure and then make recommendations. That might make it illegal for P and O to behave in this fashion and it might provide some guidance for bodies such as Hampshire county council about appropriate behaviour for wining and dining hon. Members when those bodies are attempting to promote private Bills.
I am sure that you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in a sense this is a judicial process. If groups outside the House are to have any respect for private Bills and the right to petition against them, there should be some fairness in the way in which groups with plenty of money try to influence hon. Members in comparison with other groups such as the Ramblers Association and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds which have different points of view and are clearly not in a position to entertain or provide refreshments for hon. Members to encourage their interest in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I want first to deal with the two new points raised by the hon. Gentleman. First, he asked about closures. I assure him and the House that no pressure has been brought to bear on the Chair with regard to closures. Were any hon. Member to be so unwise as to attempt that, it would be wholly counter-productive.
With regard to the private Bill procedures, as the hon. Gentleman has said, a Joint Committee is considering such procedures and I advise him to put his comments to it and ask it to consider them.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raised a point on 26 July, when you happened to be in the Chair, about a resolution passed in 1975 by the House, to the effect that an entry in the Register of Members' Interests would be sufficient to enable an hon. Member to be acquitted of the charge of not declaring a financial interest when voting.
The point that you made during the consideration of the Local Government Bill on that day was that that Bill was a public measure. Tonight, I want to refer to a private Bill—the Lloyd's Bill. I want to draw your attention to the fact that no register has been published yet. Indeed, a number of hon. Members were going to take part in the vote on the Lloyd's Bill, introduced in 1981, until the question of their membership of Lloyds was raised on the Floor of the House, very much as we are raising points of order today.
Mr. Speaker considered the matter and issued a suggestion. It was no more than a suggestion, but if it had been ignored I suggest that there would have been very serious consequences. He suggested that it would be prudent for members of Lloyd's not to take part in the


vote. First, I urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to reiterate the suggestion that anyone with a financial involvement in the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company should not take part in the vote.
Secondly, in 1976–77, the House was wracked with revelations of scandal and corruption. As a result, the Salmon Commission reported on the standards of conduct in public life in 1977. It cost £250,000 and, to the eternal shame of the House, it has never been debated. Lord Salmon recommended that legislation to make it an offence to bribe an hon. Member should be introduced. It is not an offence at present. As it is not an offence and as a consequence of our experience in this House, it behoves the House to ensure that standards of conduct in public life are of the highest. Recommendations were made for local authorities and the authorities introduced the register of business interests and there are stringent declarations of interest before debates. Indeed, councillors are debarred from taking part in the vote if they have the slightest financial interest in the matter—for example, if they live in a council house.
My suggestion tonight is that the hospitality which would not be allowed in local authorities must be questioned. There is no doubt that if such hospitality happened in a town hall where measures were being discussed, no councillor participating in the hospitality would be allowed to vote. We cannot have double standards. I hope, therefore, that you will give your attention to those serious problems, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
These problems have arisen before. For example, International News Service ran riot in this place during the passage of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. I raised points of order on the Floor of the House then, Mr. Speaker took them seriously and remedial measures were taken.
I believe that that behaviour is being repeated. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, want to see the standard of conduct in the House maintained at the highest level as an example to local authorities and other institutions. A grave warning should be issued to the people who have organised the hospitality and to those who take part in it, that it will avail them nothing. I trust that there will be a challenge to those who participate in the voting if they receive hospitality. It behoves us all, as Members of the House, whose traditions we want to maintain in some respects, to ensure that the standards of conduct are of the highest. I ask you, Sir, to issue those warnings at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it on the same point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is on a related matter.
Since I raised my original point of order, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) has raised the matter of his letter. I want to submit that that letter, in so far as it relates to hospitality, but does not quantify it, begs the question of the value of the hospitality that is granted. If the value of the hospitality was more than a sum which has not been designated, it might be construed as a pecuniary interest and be a subject of that part of "Erskine May", on page 413, relating to personal interests in votes on private Bills.
We have not quantified the measure of the pecuniary interest which derives from the availability of hospitality

this evening. Perhaps one person would drink one bottle of lemonade and his pecuniary interest might be the princely sum of 20p. But it does not say that. The request to attend refers to bottles of champagne.
Champagne is an expensive drink. This is not a flippant point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If an hon. Member attended an engagement, having been invited so that he might influence the passage of a Bill, and there received — indeed, drank — four bottles of Champagne worth perhaps £30 or £40 a bottle, that hon. Member would have a pecuniary interest of £120 or £130. He might well acquire that pecuniary interest prior to the passage of the Bill.
"Erskine May" is very clear about this. On page 413, we read:
The votes of Members, who were subscribers to undertakings proposed to be sanctioned by a private bill, or who were otherwise interested in a private bill, have frequently been disallowed.
I wish to refer to specific examples when what was deemed a pecuniary interest was deemed sufficient to warrant the disallowance of a vote.
"Erskine May" tells us:
In 1800 the votes of three Members were disallowed, as having a direct interest in a bill for incorporating a company for the manufacture of flour, wheat and bread. On 20 May 1825 notice was taken that a Member, who had voted with the ayes on the report of the Leith Docks Bill, had a direct pecuniary interest in passing the bill: he was heard in his place and stated that on that account he had not voted in the committee on the bill, and that he had voted, in this instance, through inadvertence.
That is not an excuse that hon. Members may wish to use tonight. We know that they have been invited by, and are being attracted by, pecuniary advantage in the form of expensive hospitality. It would therefore not be with any sense of inadvertence that they would leave the Jubilee Room or the tavern in St. James's, or wherever it is, and come here with the specific intention of casting a vote in the Division. The excuse of inadvertence, as produced on the occasion of the Leith Docks Bill, is thus not relevant.
"Erskine May" continues:
His vote was ordered to be disallowed.
That was despite the Member's defence that his action had been inadvertent.
Motions to disallow the votes of shareholders in the: company which was promoting the bill on which the division was taken have been negatived.
"Erskine May" tells us of another occasion:
On the second reading of the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Bill, 15 May 1845, objection was taken to one of the: tellers for the noes, as being a landholder whose property would be injured by the proposed line".
Some Conservative Members might distinguish between a pecuniary interest that derives from an unquantified value placed on hospitality, and one relating to a landowner whose property might be injured. But Parliament has not ruled on that. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that tonight's debate provides you with an opportunity to rule.
My first request is that Parliament be suspended pending a ruling on whether this matter can be dealt with tonight, so that we know whether those who receive hospitality during the course of our proceedings before they attempt to vote should be refused the right to do so.
According to "Erskine May",
on the second reading of the London and North Western Railway Bill, 14 April 1896, objection was taken to the vote of a Member on the ground that he was a director of the company. In both cases the motion for disallowing the vote was withdrawn.


It is interesting to note that those matters were dealt with at the time.
I want to know why tonight there has been no ruling either from your very good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or from Mr. Speaker. Each of the instances that I have produced is a variation on the theme of the form that a pecuniary interest can take at the time when a hon. Member may seek to vote in the Division Lobbies.
On 15 July 1872——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have got the hon. Gentleman's point without his giving any more examples. The procedure on this matter is very long established. I recollect successive Speakers giving rulings on it. I have not the precise words, but the point is direct pecuniary interest, which applies not in the debate but in the eventual vote. The ruling given on the Lloyd's Bill was that if any hon. Member felt that he had a direct pecuniary interest, of which he would be the judge, he must decide whether he was in a position to vote. That is the position, and, as far as I can judge from what the hon. Gentleman has said, exactly the same procedure applies to this Bill. However, the question is hypothetical at present, because we have not reached a vote—and, if we go on like this, it will be some time before we do so.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept that hon. Members must make a decision on the matter. The point is that, when we debated these matters on a previous occasion, hon. Members looked to "Erskine May" for guidance, and on pages 413 and 414 they found such guidance, in the examples that I have given tonight.
I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is a new form of unquantified pecuniary interest. There is no precedent in "Erskine May" for us to take as a basis on which hon. Members can decide to vote tonight. It is brand new. It is a novelty. It is a phenomenon.
I have never known of a letter such as the one from which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worsley quoted being produced during proceedings on a Bill—and, I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, neither have you. There is no record in the 1,200 pages of "Erskine May" of any such letter ever being sent to any Member of Parliament. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we should examine precedents. Perhaps, having heard more of them, you will seek to make a statement and advise the House.
On 15 July 1872——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not have more cases rehearsed. There is nothing that I can add. The matter is entirely clear. I see nothing unprecedented in what the hon. Gentleman alleges. Certainly, when I was a Back Bencher, I received letters from all and sundry every day of the week. We are all hon. Members of the House, and it is up to each hon. Member to decide whether in the circumstances he is in a position to exercise a vote. The main definition that any hon. Member would consider is whether he has a direct pecuniary interest.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are not taking on board my argument. You are making a general reply to a complicated case. I am saying that "Erskine May"

contains a series of precedents which require a ruling from the Chair on what constitutes a pecuniary interest. I have given only five; there are at least another four or five.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now engaged in a circular argument. I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman and the House that it is for each individual hon. Member to make a judgment, and I am sure that every hon. Member will do that when, in the fullness of time, we come to a vote—if we do.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are wider ramifications to my hon. Friend's point. We are accustomed to the fact that various businesses make substantial contributions to Conservative party funds.[Interruption.] And trade unions contribute to the Labour party. They do so in the general belief, from different directions, that those parties help to sustain their point of view.
We are faced with a peculiar pecuniary problem. Before it was taken over by P and O, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company made extraordinarily large contributions, for a company of its size, to Tory party funds. Since it was taken over by P and O, P and O has made substantial contributions to Tory party funds. When sums of this size are handed out by a company that is promoting a private Bill, questions relating to Members' interests have to be asked. Those aspects have not been covered, even by the extensive reading of "Erskine May" by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
The hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who is now the chairman of the Tory party, might be considered to have a pecuniary interest in the Bill, because he is the chairman of an organisation that receives substantial sums of money direct from the promoters of the Bill. Major issues of general significance that do not normally arise have been raised. It is not the habit of most promoters of private Bills to pour money into the pockets of any party that is represented in this House. As we are faced with most extraordinary circumstances, and as you are considering points that have been raised by my hon. Friends about "treating" — which, if accepted by a candidate at a general election, would be contrary to the law — this matter must be ruled on by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is doubtful whether any member of the Tory party does not have a pecuniary interest in a Bill that is being promoted by P and O, since that company is one of the biggest contributors to Tory party funds. We need a clear ruling on that matter. In his usual innovative way, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said that we are in a green field situation. We need a ruling from the Chair, if only to help Conservative Members to sustain their position regarding the Salmon Commission report on standards of conduct in public life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to the fact that the Salmon Commission's recommendations were issued as a circular to local authorities. Anybody who fails to follow the provisions of the circular lays himself open to challenge before the court. On standards of conduct in public life, Salmon said that it is not a question of whether people believe that they are straight but whether any reasonable person, seeing them


doing what they are doing and knowing of their relations with another body, believes that they are likely to be straight.
8.45 pm
Hon. Members are to be lushed up all night so that they will be here to vote. They have been given an open-ended financial inducement to be here to vote. P and O appears to have spent more time at board meetings deciding whether to make contributions to Tory party funds than thinking about the safety of its ships. We need a ruling on that matter before the House can allow consideration of the Bill to proceed. Because the objections are manifest and manifold, there should be an opportunity to debate them so that the position can be clarified.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This matter has arisen on many occasions, and I have made it clear more than once that it is for every hon. Member to decide whether or not he has a direct pecuniary interest in a private Bill. If he feels that he has a direct pecuniary interest, the advice from the Chair is that it would be wiser if he did not vote. It is for every hon. Member — I stress, every hon. Member — to come to that decision for himself. if any hon. Member is in doubt before a Division, he can take advice.
The hon. Gentleman has answered his other point for himself. He referred to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. If he feels that some area has not been effectively covered, it is a matter not for the Chair but for the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I suggest that the hon. Member should put that matter to the Committee and ask it to consider it.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to think of any additional point that can be raised that has not been raised already.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members who are rising not to repeat points on which I have already given a ruling. We have ahead of us what may well be long debates. It is my job in the Chair to protect the business of the House. We have had a long run on these points of order, and I hope that we are rapidly approaching the time when we can get on with the debates.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had no intention of raising points of order or of speaking in the debate. The Wrekin is a long way from a port or harbour. However, a number of issues have been raised, the answers to which I do not know. My hon. Friends and I have not seen this document before. It gives rise to a number of questions.
It is already late. Most people outside this building consider that we are strange individuals, as we do not work night shifts, yet this debate has not yet begun. If the debate is to continue for some hours, stamina will be involved. We wonder whether we shall be able to keep going through the night. I must confess that I flag a little at about this time of night.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order for me? We are not discussing whether we shall sit throughout the night.

Mr. Grocott: My point of order is that any inducement to hon. Members that enables them to sustain themselves through the night would give one side of the House a considerable advantage over the other.
We do not know, because the document is not sufficiently clear, what hospitality is being provided. However, in the debates in this Chamber there is an element of contest. If one side is being given an unfair advantage in adversarial politics, it is akin to sportsmen taking steroids. Conservative Members will be enabled to sustain themselves through the night while hon. Members like me, who are not night time individuals and who find it difficult to keep awake throughout the night, will be put at a disadvantage.
A point of order that needs considering has been raised. Apart from the financial points, there is a separate point with regard to the sustenance that some people are receiving. One development of that concerns me, but I am unaware of any precedent for it. The document that I have has some of the characteristics of documents that we receive every week in that the statement "Votes will be taken from 7 pm onwards" is underlined three times.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point, so I will not repeat the ruling that I have given. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to waste the time of the House. I have dealt with the point that he raised and there is nothing further that I can add.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having ascertained precisely what is on this sheet of paper — my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) made this point when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair—it appears that this copy is on House of Commons notepaper. There are strict rules about that, so the matter will have to go before the appropriate Committee with a recommendation from the Chair. Many names are mentioned on the bottom of it and it would be as well for hon. Members, notwithstanding what was said before, to know precisely who is involved : the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale), for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes-James)—I was surprised by that—for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), and so on. The hon. Members for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) and for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) are also mentioned. This is a new departure. Members have now started using House of Commons notepaper to assist P and O. This is a point that the Services Committee will have to deal with.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been helpful and has made a good point. If he feels that the House of Commons has been abused, he should take the advice he has just offered and take it up with the appropriate Committee.

Mr. Skinner: There is the point about the envelopes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can also take up that point with the appropriate Committee.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had a good run on points of order. We have dealt with all the points and


I have given a ruling on them. It is now becoming very repetitive and we must now get on with the debate. I call Mr. Snape.

Mr. Skinner: I have not finished. Somebody must go to the Jubilee Room with a breathalyser.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House has had a good run on this. Hon. Members have been able to get what they want to say on to the record, but this is now becoming an abuse of the time of the House and I am not prepared to listen to further points of order on which I have already ruled.

Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We asked Mr. Speaker earlier whether he had received any intimation from the Leader of the House that the Government intend to make a statement on the British Airways-British Caledonian merger. As the Minister for Public Transport is present, will we now be told whether there will be a statement to the House tonight or tomorrow before it is announced to the press? Mr. Speaker has endorsed the view that such matters should be announced to the House before they are announced to the press.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker dealt with that point of order earlier. The Leader of the House was in his place at the time. I cannot add anything to what Mr. Speaker has already said.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a good run and I have dealt with his point of order. We cannot deal with the same point of order over and over again. Does the hon. Gentleman have a different point of order?

Mr. Cryer: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have ruled tonight, following the ruling on the Lloyd's Bill that was introduced in 1981, that people must make their own judgment and they have received a warning from you similar to the one that was given on the Lloyd's Bill. However, there is an important difference, because the warning on the Lloyd's Bill was issued before the debate and the point of order was raised in anticipation of the debate. Tonight there is only a handful of hon. Members in the Chamber. Some hon. Members will vote — they are waiting outside—who have not heard your warning. The warning on the Lloyd's Bill was reported in Hansard, was circulated widely and was reported. Therefore, Members had a legitimate chance to say, "We have received this warning; therefore, we can make a judgment".
However, what about an hon. Member who has, for example, a banking interest that may be financing the extension that is sought in the Bill, or who is an adviser to McAlpine's, such as the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale), and may have an interest in its construction? No warning has been given to such hon. Members. In the Lloyd's Bill the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) sought guidance and the then hon. Member for Crosby, Sir Graham Page, accepted it. However, there has been no evidence that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) will warn his supporters as Sir Graham Page did in 1981. I do not know what sort of guidance you can

give to ensure that the promoters warn all their supporters about this. In the Lloyd's Bill hon. Members with interests in Lloyd's, with one exception, prudently stayed out of the Lobby.
We make it clear that we shall be going through the voting list with a fine-toothed comb. When the register is produced, if people have a pecuniary interest, we shall raise the matter. Therefore, it is important that we have a response from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) in the decent traditions that were begun by the late Sir Graham Page. He said, "I accept guidance". He told the Lloyd's Bill supporters about the then Speaker's guidance. We have had no similar assurance. The hon. Gentleman owes it to the House and to yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to give an assurance.

9 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The warning that I have given on many occasions is not new. There really is no need for further warnings to be given to hon. Members. They know the procedures of the House; they are well established. If hon. Members are in any doubt, they know where to seek advice before a vote is taken. I call Mr. Peter Snape.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. McNamara: I wish to refer to procedure, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Earlier, when the letter was mentioned, you said that the hon. Member who raised the matter should write about it to Mr. Speaker, because that is the proper procedure to follow when a matter of privilege is raised. A problem arises in respect of the procedure which follows if an hon. Member writes to Mr. Speaker on a private Bill such as one of this nature, stating that it infringes the privileges of the House in a certain way.
If Mr. Speaker concludes that the promoters of a private Bill who take a hospitality room and produce a "whip" showing that hon. Members will be well catered for if they are knocking around and willing to vote for the Bill — that is, "Come with us, have a good night out with your wife at the flicks and have some free champagne" — commit a breach of privilege, the Bill may well have gone through all its stages in the House. I hope that that does not happen.
Is there a retrospective position, or do we just have to hope that our sovereign lady the Queen does not imply her assent to the Bill because the promoters have grossly interfered with the procedures of the House in seeking to influence hon. Members to act in a certain way in regard to a private Bill? What will happen if it is then ruled that that was a breach of privilege?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with a hypothetical matter. We have not yet come to a vote on the Bill. Some time ago, the House, in its wisdom, decided that matters of privilege should be dealt with in the way that I have described, that is, that the hon. Member who considers that there has been a prima facie breach of privilege should put the matter to Mr. Speaker. The matter will then be dealt with in the way in which the House has decided. Such procedures were decided by the House, and that is the right course for any hon. Member to pursue.

Mr. McNamara: I am sorry to pursue the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take precisely the point that you make. That would obviously arise if, for example, a newspaper article appears or a certain set of circumstances arise before a Bill is actually before the House. The point is that the document has come to light when the Bill is on the Order Paper and we have started our proceedings. As I understand the matter, unless you so rule, there is no way in which we can stop proceeding with the Bill until we have a ruling from Mr. Speaker after my hon. Friends write to him asking whether there has been a breach of privilege. Opposition Members are concerned about the matter. The Bill may be passed and Mr. Speaker may rule that there has been a prima facie breach of privilege to go to the Committee. The Committee may then say that there has been a gross interference with our procedures.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can only repeat what I have said to the hon. Gentleman. The privilege procedures have been laid down by the House. I am bound by such procedures, as is any other hon. Member. I repeat that all this discussion is hypothetical. My advice, and that of many Speakers over the years, is that the matter arises only when votes take place. At that time, each hon. Member must decide whether he is in a position to vote. The matter is hypothetical at the moment.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As one of the new hon. Members, I am totally confused about what happens in the House compared with what happens in local government.
The situation is quite clear. As a member of the Wigan metropolitan borough council, I know that, however a letter of this type came, two things would happen. First, the hon. Member concerned would have to declare an interest and leave the meeting and, secondly, as the letter came from someone who was seeking a contract, the tender would immediately be removed from the tender list.
I want to come to the point relating to——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have got the hon. Gentleman's point. The answer is very simple. The rules for local government are different from the rules of the House. The rules of the House are made by the House, which is sovereign in the matter. I have more than once described to the House the rules and regulations governing the matter.

Mr. McCartney: I understand what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have a second point relating to the Fees Office on which I should like some advice. When I came to the House as a new hon. Member I spent a considerable time at the Fees Office where I sought advice on the use of travel warrants for spouses and for members of my family who wished to come to the House.
It is clear from the letter that we received this evening, written on House of Commons paper, that spouses have been offered hospitality and are therefore coming to the House, not to meet an hon. Member but to enjoy that hospitality. Therefore, hon. Members have used their position and their travel warrants, financed out of public funds, so that their spouses could come to the House not to meet them but to meet the promoters of a private Bill. That is completely contrary not only to the advice of the Fees Office but to the rules of the House. I wish to know whether the hon. Members named in the letter have used

their warrants yesterday or today to enable their spouses to attend a function—whether a function that has been cancelled or one that is taking place elsewhere.
It is very important that we should know whether public money has been used to allow spouses to come to the House to enjoy the hospitality of the promoters of a private Bill. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) should give us an answer. Any other hon. Member ——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have got the hon. Gentleman's point. The answer is that if he feels that there has been an abuse, he should refer it to the appropriate Committee so that it can be properly investigated. For the third time, I call Mr. Snape——

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All the points of order raised recently have been repetitions of, or very similar to, the points that I have dealt with already. It is my job to protect the business of the House. Points of order have now been going on for over an hour and it is very important that we should get on with the business before the House. I have done my utmost—as did Mr. Speaker before he left the Chair — to make it clear to hon. Members what the procedures are. There is nothing that I can add that would not be tedious repetition. So we really should get on with the debate.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order if it is a different point of order.

Mr. Cook: I have listened to the whole sequence of points of order. You will know, Sir, that I have the utmost respect for the Chair and, indeed, for you personally. You see me in somewhat casual garb today. I am wearing the parliamentary crest of the Victorian State Parliament of Australia. I wear that crest with pride, just as I wear the Westminster crest with pride.
I am worried, Sir, by your response to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). You said quite properly that my hon. Friend's point was hypothetical. No one could disagree with that observation because clearly the point was hypothetical. That is the whole point. I should hate the Chair generally or you particularly to perhaps be subject to criticism afterwards for a ruling that may well be questioned by history, historians and by the House itself.
I put it to you with the deepest respect that it might be prudent to have perhaps a 10 or 15-minute adjournment so that people can consult on this matter. Clearly this is a one-off. It was discovered and declared to the House after the sitting had started. We have never been in this situation before. Let us not leave the matter as a hypothetical one. Let us pause for breath. Had we done that at 8.30 pm, the matter might be resolved now. Can we pause for 10 minutes to consult outside the Chamber? I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for an adjournment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House know that the Chair never rules on hypothetical questions. The Chair rules when an incident occurs. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced hon. Member and has heard that from the Chair on many occasions. There is nothing I can add to the rulings I have given and I again


appeal to the House. It is my job to protect the business of the House. We have had a good run on points of order. Every hon. Member who has been rising on a point of order has been given an opportunity to put it. Hon. Members are now rising for a second and third time and that is unfair to other hon. Members who are anxious to get on with the debate. For the fourth time, I call Mr. Snape.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am taking no more points of order.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am taking no more points of order on this matter. I have been patient and dealt with them.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I have called at least once those hon. Gentlemen who have been rising and in one case I have called an hon. Gentleman twice. I do not think that there can be any additional points of order that have not been made.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is to do with the promoters' amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it to do with the amendments now under discussion? It is more convenient to take points of order on amendments when we reach them on the Order Paper.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is about what is on the Order Paper which says:
A copy of the proposed Amendment may be obtained by Members from the Vote Office or inspected in the Private Bill Office.
That is a reference to an amendment to be proposed by the promoters. My point of order has nothing to do with any matter that has been raised by me or my hon. Friends this evening.
You will know and understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is a procedure that has to be followed by promoters of a private Bill in order to secure the printing of that reference on our Order Paper. That procedure is laid out on page 1035 of "Erskine May" under the heading:
Rules as to amendments proposed to be moved on consideration … of a Bill.
That section deals with private Bills. It says:
When the promoters intend to offer any clause, or to propose any amendment on the consideration of any private bill.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There are no amendments being moved.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am putting to you a perfectly sensible point of order, but the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) cannot contain herself for some reason. Would you perhaps deal with her in the way in which she suggested we should be dealt with?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have not yet put my point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point quite clearly and I can rule on it. If he feels that I have not covered it adequately, I shall call him again. The main point here is that the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. We are dealing not with amendments that have been tabled by the promoters, but with the amendments on the Order Paper, all of which are in the names of hon. Members. They would not be on the Order Paper if they were not in order. I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's point to his satisfaction.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes, I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but perhaps you could explain the reference in brackets to an amendment to be proposed by the promoters, which states :
A copy of the proposed Amendment may be obtained by Members from the Vote Office or inspected in the Private Bill Office."——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can deal with the hon. Gentleman's point. There should really be a line before the words
Private Business at Seven o'clock".
The amendments refer to the Dyfed Bill [Lords] which was dealt with at 2.30, and have nothing whatever to do with this Bill. It is not often that the hon. Gentleman gets himself into confusions on procedural matters, but that is the short answer.
For the fifth time of asking, I call Mr. Peter Snape.

Mr. Peter Snape: rose——

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a different point of order and relates to unemployment. It has nothing to do with other points of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a different point of order, I shall hear him, but I hope that he will be brief because he has already had many goes during the past hour.

Mr. Skinner: I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be as interested in this as I was. I remember when you were a Minister concerned with social services. You took a keen interest in unemployment benefit. At that time, nobody could lose unemployment benefit for a period of six weeks for leaving work voluntarily. That did not change during the period when you sat on the Front Bench. Today——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am flattered by what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, my past, when I was in a different incarnation, is now in the mists of history and should not be quoted.

Mr. Skinner: Since that time, there have been some changes. The last change increased the period to 13 weeks and people could lose unemployment benefit for 13 weeks if they left work voluntarily. That happened earlier this year. However, we have had a devastating announcement today in a written answer that the number of weeks will be increased to 26——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and knows very well that the matter that he is now raising has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bill. However, I am sure that with his usual skill in parliamentary procedure he will find an appropriate time to raise that important matter. I call Mr. Peter Snape.

Mr. Snape: rose——

Mr. Skinner: All that I am trying to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that there should be a statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: Hon. Members are wining and dining down there, but people on unemployment benefit——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have covered this course. The House has had a good run and I have been very patient. However, I repeat that it is the job of the Chair to protect the business of the House and there is much business before us. There is nothing that I can add. I have done my utmost to answer all the points of order that have been put to me. We must now get on with the debate. I call Mr. Peter Snape.

Mr. Snape: I fear that anything that I say will be an anti-climax. However——

Mr. Eddie Loyden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that I have not called the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will raise a different point of order and not repeat others.

Mr. Loyden: I do not envy your position tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that you should consider the history of the Bill's passage through the House. You will be aware that hon. Members resigned from the Committee that examined the Bill because of their suspicions about the way in which the Bill was conducted. Indeed, a request was made to the Chairman of Ways and Means to consider the way in which the House proceeds with private Bills. There is no doubt that opposition has been growing in the House about what has been happening and that calls not only the House but the credibility of Parliament into disrepute and is sacrificing the long-term objectives of the port transport industry to short-term and doubtful considerations.
I do not for one moment impose upon you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the responsibility for making decisions about such things. However, it is evident from the strong feelings of hon. Members that, to say the least, question marks hang over the Bill and the way in which it has proceeded through the House.
There is time to stop and think about it. The only way in which that can be done is by the Chair imposing its will. Ultimately. Mr. Speaker is responsible and has to determine whether the credibility of the House outside is sustained. It could not be sustained by the way in which the Bill has proceeded. There has been a catalogue of interventions, suspicions, innuendos and charges against the Bill that should not go unheard by the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat what I said in answer to an earlier point of order. There is a Private Bill Procedure Committee considering private Bill procedure. The correct course is for hon. Members who are dissatisfied to give their views to that Committee. I call Mr. Snape.

Mr. Snape: rose——

Mr. McCartney: On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Snape: This is no life for a man of my age.

Mr. McCartney: rose——

Mr. Snape: Am I giving way'?

Mr. McCartney: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order.

Mr. Snape: There are about 300 ports in this country. I am only glad that we are not debating the other 299 tonight. We would be here for a considerable time if we did.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Snape: I knew I was doing too well.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has made a very good point at the start of his speech. Does he accept that the Bill will adversely affect 299 of the 300 ports, and provide material advantage only to Felixstowe, while its consequences will ripple through the United Kingdom and maybe further?

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend has gazed with his usual perception at least two paragraphs into my speech. I intend to attempt to show the House that the Bill will have an enormous impact not only on British ports but on continental ports. I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) will concede that the proposed development of Felixstowe will have an enormous impact on British ports, both scheme and non-scheme. I hope to show the House that this development is therefore undesirable and that the two amendments that we discussed the last time the Bill was before us, in July, are essential.
Few hon. Members, whatever their views on the Bill, would doubt that British ports are in decline. There are 78 per cent. fewer registered dock workers than there were 20 years ago. Although those statistics may appeal to Conservative Members, they go some way to illustrate the scale of that decline. Under this Government, redundancies among registered dock workers have accelerated considerably. There are 12,000 fewer registered dock workers now than there were in 1979 when the Government took office.
Not only the scope and capacity of British ports and the number of workers have declined since 1979, but investment in the ports has also declined by nearly the same proportion, largely because of the Government's policy to leave the development of the ports to the market place with no assessment of either the needs or the transport requirements of the nation. This Bill, like others introduced by the Government, is designed not only to increase the potential of Felixstowe, a non-scheme port, but to break the power of those who work in the industry by ending the national dock labour scheme, which has protected the conditions of dock workers for more than 40 years.
It is the Government's right—I concede that at the outset—to introduce a Bill, if they so desire, to do just that. However, the Government would not fancy either the industrial confrontation that would result after the introduction of such a Bill or the row that it would cause among their own supporters in the management of the dock industry.
It cannot be denied that the fortunes of all Britain's ports, including Felixstowe, are closely tied to the patterns of foreign trade. All the ports have shared a similar fate to that of Britain's merchant shipping industry, especially over the past 20 years. However, that decline has accelerated dramatically in the past six years. The pattern


of development at indivdual ports, especially ports such as Felixstowe, has been closely connected with the demands of the shipowners, the dock companies and the users of the ports.
The Government are adamant that the ports—all of them, including Felixstowe — should develop purely according to the demands of the market place. The Government have removed from the statute book their powers to control port development. The Government believe there was a good reason to remove those powers—they did so rather than make a decision as to whether to allow development to take place some time ago at another port, the Falmouth container depot.
The fact that we do not have any sort of ports policy is a matter of concern not only to my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches, but also to commentators about this industry, be they Labour supporters, Conservative supporters or Liberal supporters—I cannot say alliance supporters as it does not exist any more.
The haphazard development of ports in this country was illustrated by an article in the Financial Times, again not a particularly Labour-oriented newspaper, on 22 December 1986. Kevin Brown, the transport correspondent for that newspaper, wrote an article under the heading:
Haphazard development of ports criticised.
The article said:
The Government lacks the political will to reverse the haphazard development of British ports over the past 20 years, according to a report by the National Economic Development Office. The report, written by the civil engineering economic development committee, criticises the abandonment of the Maplin airport and seaport project drawn up in the 1960s, which, it says, caused delays in siting of London's third airport.
That report said:
During the years that have elapsed, port development has proceeded in a haphazard way and not entirely in a free enterprise environment.
I would have thought that the Conservative party, which professes its devotion to the idea of the free enterprise environment, would——

Mr. Skinner: Not now. If we are to have a serious debate, it is as well that we get things right. It is true that the Government were elected on the philosophy of allowing the market to rule. However, in this Bill it is pretty plain for anybody to see that there is massive Government intervention. In the earlier points of order we heard about other forms of intervention. We are now faced with a different ball game altogether, especially after the stock exchange crash.
My hon. Friend will recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House and underwrote the underwriters. Now things are completely different. Indeed, we could be arguing now for the docks that are in the dock labour scheme to be underwritten as opposed to giving help, in this instance, to the Felixstowe scheme. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that, yes, for some years the monetarist argument prevailed, but now we can see it has fallen around the feet of the people who were trying to project that great, wonderful image.

Mr. Snape: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his guidance. When it comes to Conservative party policy, I appreciate that he is an expert——

Mr. Skinner: I read the Conservative press.

Mr. Snape: —because, as he says, he reads the Conservative press as well as the more Left-wing press. I was merely reading an article in the Financial Times. As my hon. Friend will know, mistakes are quite often made in such newspapers because, although they are occasionally guilty of impartiality, that does not happen often. The Financial Times is traditionally a supporter of the system that the Conservative party embraces so fervently.
The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has just arrived. He is anxious to hurry me along. I have been waiting some considerable time to support the amendments, so I hope that he will contain his natural impatience and allow me to make the case for the amendments in my own time, because it is a substantial case. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will accept that it is nonsense to say that ports can develop without any implications for Government. The proposed development will cause damage to the nearby port of Southampton and I have referred during previous debates to a contribution made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman, as indeed he acknowledges himself, is a fairly Right-wing member of the Conservative party. Conservative Members who would like to know what the Right wing of their party has to say about the impact of the amendments to the Bill would do well to look at the Official Report of 23 July 1987, as on that day I read into Hansard parts of a speech made by the hon. Gentleman, who, alas, is not with us this evening.
I will paraphrase what the hon. Member for Test said about the port of Southampton, of which he is understandably proud. He said that it was capable of accepting any additional traffic that would be generated by the increase in containerisation worldwide. I trust that the House will accept that I have the gist of his speech right when I say that he said that the developments envisaged under the Bill would have a severe effect on the port of Southampton and that, despite the best efforts of management and trade unionists at that port, its future prospects would be considerably and adversely affected by the uncontrolled growth of a port such as Felixstowe, which is outside the dock work regulation scheme — [Interruption.] I missed that sedentary interjection.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I thought that the hon. Gentleman said earlier that he wanted more dockers, not fewer.

Mr. Snape: I did not proffer an opinion. I would like to see more dockers. That would be a sign that Britain's trade was improving. All we have at the moment are the honeyed words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and we cannot stuff them in containers and export them any more than they are imported through ports such as Felixstowe.

Mr. McNamara: Does my hon. Friend mean that he would like to see more registered dockers?

Mr. Snape: As a member of the National Union of Railwaymen, I take the view that the arrangements made at various ports are a matter between Government—the Government have a role to play, as I am sure the Minister of State will agree — the port employers and the employees, including, of course, the National Union of Railwaymen.
I do not want to debate chapter and verse of working conditions on the Floor of the House. I have always


thought that such things are better done by experts. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is an expert, with the best will in the world I do not believe that these are the sort of matters in which Conservative Members should be dabbling. In the very nature of things, their knowledge of these issues is bound to be sketchy.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: How kind.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman feels that he is being patronised, which shows that he is fairly thin-skinned. I do not know how long he has been in the House — not long, I would have thought — so I hope that he can develop a tougher hide than he now has; otherwise, he will often be upset. I do not seek deliberately to offend him or any other hon. Member. I merely tried to point out in my usual non-controversial manner that the prospect of many Conservative hon. Members negotiating terms and conditions for dock workers or any other industrial group in British society is an unlikely one. If the hon. Gentleman has the experience to prove me wrong, I shall allow him to inform the House of his wide experience in these matters, and I shall apologise for even ruffling his feathers.

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman believes that Conservative Members have not negotiated for trade unions, he is wrong. If he believes that we did not take part in negotiations for trade unions before we entered the House, he is equally wrong. If he thinks that my relatives were not trade unionists in the docks and other industries, he is also wrong. He thinks that his side of the House represents one sort of person in society and we represent another, and he is wrong about that, too.

Mr. Snape: Obviously, I am failing to make myself clear. I never thought for a moment that Conservative hon. Members did not have experience of negotiating trade union conditions from the trade union side. I am happy to concede that the world is full of people who, having started off in life, get a few bob in their pockets and move on to consider themselves——

Mr. Hughes: rose——

Mr. Snape: I was more concerned about what experience the hon. Gentleman had of management, because managers negotiate over working conditions with trade unionists. Again, I was probably wrong. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that he has a somewhat youthful appearance; perhaps it belies his vast experience in industry. I am prepared to accept that, despite the youthful appearance, for which I commend the hon. Gentleman, he might well have wide managerial experience and competence. He may have done the type of negotiating that I am discussing. If so, I hope that he will concede that he would be an exception on the Conservative Benches. Let us leave it at that, and I hope not to ruffle the hon. Gentleman's feathers again.

Mr. Skinner: I do not know why the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) does not intervene and explain what vast experience he has, because I have just been informed that he came here from the BBC. I reckon that he must know something about the Felixstowe dock scheme, so I hope that my hon. Friend will be fair to him and allow him to explain what he knows.

Mr. Snape: I shall not attempt an explanation in the way my hon. Friend has suggested. The hon. Member for

Harrow, West must be doubly unique because, not only has he managerial experience in negotiating trade union conditions on behalf of the management, but he works in the public sector of industry—which is what the BBC is. I welcome this infusion of talent into the Tory ranks, and I must say, as non-controversially as possible, that it. is long overdue. I hope the hon. Gentleman will bring his valuable experience to bear on his right hon. and hon. Friends to convince them that there are good things in the public sector, even if some of them become Conservative Members of Parliament in later life.
I hope I may be allowed to continue with my support for this group of amendments. Coping with the overcapacity in Britain's docks is what the amendments are about. I hope that the Conservative party, and even the hon. Member for Harrow, West, will accept that there is indeed great over-capacity in Britain's docks. If they are not prepared to do so, I shall have to start at square one on the Bill. I think that all of us with even a nodding acquaintance with this industry will accept that there is considerable over-capacity. I hope that the Conservative party will accept that our purpose in tabling the group of amendments is to illustrate not only that that overcapacity exists but that there is a practical way of tackling the problem.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept not only the over-capacity that has been developed but the potential of further over-capacity since substantial lands at Southampton have been reclaimed for the purpose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We are on the dock labour scheme and I hope that we will stick to dock labour. Mr. Snape.

Mr. Snape: I was giving way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) cannot give way to an hon. Member who is speaking irrelevantly.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Southampton dock area about which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was speaking is covered by the dock labour scheme. My hon. Friend was seeking to make the point that——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I heard the hon. Gentleman. He was talking about the availability of land at Southampton. I hope that hon. Members will talk about the availability of labour in the docks and the dock labour scheme.

Mr. Snape: We will indeed. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) will accept your strictures in the spirit in which they were made, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We can continue with the debate about the dock labour scheme and the impact that this great expansion at Felixstowe will have not only on individuals who work within that scheme but on the other non-scheme ports throughout the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for — [Interruption.] — no, it was Keighley last time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) ——

Mr. Hanley: Incompetence.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman should hang on before he tempts me down the road of competence. I am certainly not competent to pose wearing such a vest as the hon. Gentleman did some years ago, so we had better not go down that road either.
The impact that the Bill will have not only on scheme ports but on ports outside the scheme ought to be acknowledged. Although Conservative Members demonstrate time after time that they have no great fondness for the dock labour scheme, I would have thought that they would realise the impact that the Bill will have on ports outside the scheme. They do not have to go far to see that impact. Down the east coast, and particularly in the south of England, there are non-scheme ports at Great Yarmouth, at Harwich, the former British Rail port now owned by Sealink at Kings Lynn and at Lowestoft. I hope the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who is promoting the Bill on behalf of P and O, will acknowledge that the development proposed within the Bill will have a severe and probably adverse impact on surrounding ports.
I do not want to get involved in the controversy aired earlier about social functions within the precincts of the House or anywhere else. I am sorry that I did not get an invitation, because in that convivial atmosphere I could have explained the view that we would take. I understand that in that convivial atmosphere there might have been an attempt to arrive at a compromise on the Bill. [AN HON. MEMBER: "To withdraw it."] That would be one way of compromising ; I am not sure that it would meet with the approval of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. It appears that the impact of the Bill on ports adjacent to Felixstowe will be fairly great. Speaking from memory, I think that all those ports are within constituencies held by Conservative Members, although there are not many hon. Members in the Chamber at present to defend the interests of those ports and deal with the adverse impact that the Bill will have on them. I assure those hon. Gentlemen that we shall do our duty and theirs too by pointing out the damage that will be caused unless these amendments are accepted.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) says that most of the competing ports are in the constituencies of Conservative Members. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Transport and General Workers Union has approached its branches in all those ports. In every case, they oppose the Bill on the basis that their members would lose work, yet hon. Gentlemen seem to be indifferent to the loss of work that will arise in their own constituencies.

Mr. Snape: Indeed ; it is surprising that, regardless of party affiliations, hon. Members jealously and inderstandably guard employment prospects within their constituencies. It is unusual, and a departure from the normal procedures of the House, that hon. Gentlemen choose not to take part in debates on a Bill such as this.
I should say in fairness to the hon. Member for Test that, although he is not here tonight and was not present when the Bill was debated previously, he has spoken in defence of the port of Southampton and the jobs that would be lost there if these amendments were not accepted.
It is important that we should look again at overcapacity. I must repeat that not only trade unions, to which

my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred, have set out the problems of over-capacity in stark terms, and the need to look carefully at development proposals at Felixstowe and elsewhere. In an article in the magazine Transport, published in February 1987, a Mr. N. H. Finney, director of the British Ports Association, pointed to the dangers of over-capacity. Indeed, his article is headed "Coping with Over-Capacity". He said that despite their seemingly good intentions—wecould fall out with him there as he was talking about the Government — the Government have yet to develop a sound policy towards United Kingdom ports, particularly because they seem not to have made up their mind what they want their role to be in the next decade.
He went on:
There are three classes of "port citizen". Firstly, the non-dock labour scheme, private port—free to raise capital as it wishes and able to diversify without restraint. There is then the traditional trust or company dock labour scheme port — hemmed in by restrictions and unable to raise finance and diversify as it might always wish to. Finally, there is the ex-nationalised sector of the industry — now known as Associated British Ports and Sealink Harbours, collectively owning 25 ports. These are able to use considerable market strength and, in ABP's case, exploit its valuable land bank and use multi-port ownership to boost customer loyalty and develop efficiency.
The kernel of the problem is starkly outlined there by Mr. Finney. I do not know anything of Mr. Finney's political affiliations, but I would hazard a guess that he would not donate much to the election effort of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) or indeed towards mine.[Interruption.] I would send the hon. Member for Faversham a shilling or two if I thought for a moment that he was ever in any danger, but because of his great popularity, he does not need that sort of assistance.
The fact that a director of the BPA speaks in such stark terms of over-capacity will sound a note of caution to those hon. Gentlemen who consider the Bill to be the be-all and end-all of port development.
I referred earlier to a report produced by the civil engineering economic development committee of the National Economic Development Office, entitled
The Nation's Infrastructure—Sea and Estuarial Ports".
In somewhat sombre terms, the report said that ports in the United Kingdom are constituted in a number of different ways. They include the traditional public trust ports such as London, municipally owned ports such as Bristol, privately owned ports such as Felixstowe and all the British Rail ports now owned by Sea Containers, such as Harwich and Parkeston Quay. It went on to talk about the other important group being the recently privatised Associated British Ports, to which I have already referred.
However, I should say in passing that Mr. Finney, the director of the British Ports Association, includes in his 19 privatised Associated British Ports the ports of Southampton and Hull. Therefore, if one disagrees with what he said it could be argued that he was anxious only to protect Southampton and Hull. However, in fairness it should be recognised that, given the fairly close geographical location of those two ports to Felixstowe, he has a reasonable — or unreasonable — argument to put forward.
Time after time Ministers say that the Bill is essential in order to protect Britain's trade and that the delay that the Opposition have, for good reason, inflicted on the Bill is having a severe impact on British ports. They say that there is a danger of traffic being diverted from United Kingdom


ports.[Interruption.] I am asked about the Channel tunnel. I shall come to that, although only in the context of the amendments. My hon. Friends must contain themselves.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that any dock labour scheme labour is employed or likely to be employed on the Channel tunnel.

Mr. Snape: I would not dream for a moment of crossing swords with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the impact that the Channel tunnel may well have on Britain's ports industry is enormous. One reason why I support the project, although many of my hon. Friends do not, is that it might well bring great economic advantages to west coast ports that have been sadly run down over the past 20 years, particularly since we joined the EEC — unwisely, in my view. However, I shall not spend any time on that.
The impact on the national dock labour scheme and on ports policy generally of the Channel tunnel is likely to be enormous. I should have thought that, once the Channel tunnel was built, it would be in the interests of shippers of container traffic from North America to dock at Liverpool, instead of sailing round to Rotterdam with British containers.

Mr. McNamara: rose——

Mr. Snape: Liverpool, as my hon. Friend will know, is already part of the electrified west coast main line. They could then proceed directly through the Channel tunnel to whatever was their ultimate destination.

Mr. McNamara: Would it not be logical to put such containers on the M62 and out through Hull to Rotterdam, Copenhagen and so on? When my hon. Friend considers the Channel tunnel and its effect on capacity and employment, should he not consider the deleterious effect that that is likely to have on the east coast ports, the dock labour schemes in those ports, the tradition of sound dock work and expanding ports on the east coast which my hon. Friend's scheme and the Bill will ruin?

Mr. Snape: It is not "my" scheme, as my hon. Friend erroneously described it. I acknowledge that I had the honour to lead for the Opposition in Committee and in Select Committee, but we are all equal as members of the Select Committee. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that when he replies.
The scheme's impact on east coast ports and on the national dock labour scheme may be as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North described. Just as our joining the EEC led to the decline of west coast ports because our markets were skewed from the Atlantic——

Mr. Skinner: A deal was done.

Mr. Snape: Of course it has not "done a deal" for anyone, to use my hon. Friend's earthy phrase. However, whatever our views on the Channel tunnel project, I hope that we can accept what has happened.
Within the context of the amendment, there are important differences in the way in which scheme and non-scheme ports are managed. Because of those important differences, there will be an obvious impact on employment prospects unless the amendment is accepted.
Almost all ports in the United Kingdom are managed by harbour authorities set up and operated under their own statutory powers. That applies as much to the privately owned and municipal ports as to public trust

ports. Without lingering long on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who referred to land in Southampton, it is fair to state that any new development outside a statutory harbour authority must be sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, or more rarely through planning permission. That is one of the reasons why we are here tonight and why we have debated this issue on many nights. [Interruption]

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you ask hon. Members below the Gangway to hush a little so that we can hear what my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has to say?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that hon. Members congregating below the Bar of the House will not conduct conversations in loud voices. That is very distracting and is interrupting business.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased that you have taken up the issue of the chatter below the Gangway and beyond the Bar of the House. As you know, the Jubilee Room opened for refreshments at 9.30 pm. I know that you are not allowed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say that Conservative Members come into the Chamber drunk. However, are you allowed to say that they are half-sober?

Mr. Snape: I would not pass a comment one way or another.
We are considering the differences between various scheme and non-scheme ports. Apart from the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport appoints members to the boards of most of the larger trust ports, British ports are for the most part independent of Government. I realise that that always appeals to the Conservative party. The Government abolished the statutory right to interfere in those matters fairly early on in the life of this Administration.
Before the Bill sees the light of day, I have an idea that the Government will regret that somewhat arbitrary abolition. It might well have come in handy for them to use a spot of arbitrary legislation with regard to ports, particularly to help out the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who—I must give him credit—has not moved from his seat since the points of order, regardless of the supposed attractions of the Jubilee Room or the Royal St. James hotel. Although the hon. Gentleman was mentioned as one of the "Felixstowe Eleven", he has clearly put in a substitute. I do not know whether I would carry the hon. Gentleman with me if I said——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put,

That, at this day's sitting, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour—[Mr. Dorrell.]

The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 70.

Division No. 48]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Beggs, Roy


Amess, David
Beith, A. J.


Arbuthnot, James
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ashby, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkins, Robert
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, David
Bottomley, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Batiste, Spencer
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brazier, Julian






Bright, Graham
Hind, Kenneth


Brooke, Hon Peter
Holt, Richard


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Browne, John (Winchester)
Howard, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Buck, Sir Antony
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Burns, Simon
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Butcher, John
Howells, Geraint


Butler, Chris
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Chapman, Sydney
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Chope, Christopher
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jackson, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Janman, Timothy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, John
Johnston, Sir Russell


Couchman, James
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cran, James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kilfedder, James


Curry, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kirkwood, Archy


Day, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knowles, Michael


Durant, Tony
Knox, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Lang, Ian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Latham, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Farr, Sir John
Lee, John (Pendle)


Favell, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fearn, Ronald
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lilley, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Livsey, Richard


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Franks, Cecil
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
Macfarlane, Neil


French, Douglas
MacGregor, John


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gardiner, George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Major, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Gregory, Conal
Miller, Hal


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Ground, Patrick
Moate, Roger


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moss, Malcolm


Hanley, Jeremy
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hannam, John
Needham, Richard


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Neubert, Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Hawkins, Christopher
Onslow, Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Paice, James


Hayward, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pawsey, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Porter, David (Waveney)





Portillo, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Price, Sir David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Raffan, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Redwood, John
Thorne, Neil


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thurnham, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tracey, Richard


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Tredinnick, David


Rowe, Andrew
Trippier, David


Ryder, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Scott, Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wallace, James


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shersby, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sims, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Watts, John


Speed, Keith
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Whitney, Ray


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wiggin, Jerry


Stern, Michael
Wilshire, David


Stevens, Lewis
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Yeo, Tim


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Summerson, Hugo



Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and Mr. David Maclean.


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Leadbitter, Ted


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lewis, Terry


Battle, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Beckett, Margaret
Loyden, Eddie


Boateng, Paul
McCartney, Ian


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
McFall, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McNamara, Kevin


Canavan, Dennis
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clay, Bob
Martlew, Eric


Clelland, David
Meale, Alan


Coleman, Donald
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Murphy, Paul


Crowther, Stan
O'Neill, Martin


Cryer, Bob
Patchett, Terry


Dalyell, Tarn
Pike, Peter


Darling, Alastair
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dobson, Frank
Quin, Ms Joyce


Eastham, Ken
Reid, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Rogers, Allan


Fatchett, Derek
Rooker, Jeff


Foster, Derek
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Snape, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Steinberg, Gerald


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Strang, Gavin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Grocott, Bruce
Wareing, Robert N.


Hardy, Peter
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hinchliffe, David



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. George Howarth.


Ingram, Adam



Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier it was reported that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the proposed British Airways-British Caledonian merger was not to be reported to the House but was to be announced at a press conference tomorrow morning by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. When Mr. Speaker was informed of that fact, he said, as he always does, that important announcements would best be made to the House. We have asked the Leader of the House whether there will be a Government statement or whether he will make a business statement tonight on the proposed merger. Have you been informed that the Leader of the House wishes to make such a statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The Chair has not been told by any Minister that he wishes to make a statement to the House. As the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Speaker dealt with a similar point of order earlier and ruled on it. I cannot add to that ruling.

Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker said that he thought it would be best if the Government made a statement or said that they intend to make a statement because such matters should be dealt with by statements to the House. There has been considerable passage of time since then and we want to know from the Leader of the House — who is now present and presumably knows the answer — whether there will be a statement tonight or tomorrow or whether the matter will be released to the newspapers by somebody whom even the Prime Minister deemed to be unfit to be the chairman of the Tory party.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker dealt with the matter earlier. I recall that he expressed the personal view that matters of this kind should be reported to the House first. Of course, neither he nor I, nor any other occupant of the Chair. has any power to direct Ministers on matters of this kind.

Mr. Roger Stott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is quite conceivable that the House of Commons could sit throughout tonight and into the early hours of tomorrow morning.[Interruption.] Conservative Members have made my point. I put it to you, Sir, that the proposed merger between British Airways and British Caledonian is of national interest and has been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the unelected noble Lord, is to——

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): The hon. Gentleman has read that once already.

Mr. Stott: If the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) wants me to say it again, I shall do so.
If the Secretary of State is to make any comment about the matter, it should be made in the House of Commons, if it is sitting tonight or tomorrow morning. If the Leader of the House were not prepared to accept that a Minister of the Crown in this House should go to the Dispatch Box when the House is sitting and tell the House of Commons what the Government will do in respect of the referral of

the British Airways and British Caledonian merger, it would be the greatest contempt of the House that he could show. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman reminds us, the Leader of the House is present. He is no doubt aware of the Opposition's view. Perhaps we should get on with the Bill. I call Mr. Peter Snape.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: A different sticky problem on the same issue.
I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have a responsibility, though not necessarily to comment on the issues that have been put to you; we understand the difficulty in which you are placed. There is another matter. This is not the first occasion on which Lord Young has decided to make announcements of this nature. It happened on a previous occasion when the takeover of Matthew Brown by Scottish and Newcastle was not announced to the House of Commons. Such announcements are not being made because the noble Lord Young intends to take responsibility for them, but he cannot make statements at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons because he is unelected. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) raised the matter of his being an unelected Lord.
An important constitutional point is at issue. Recognising that a peer of the realm cannot make a statement at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons but yet is unwilling to cede the right to a junior Minister to make that statement, is it right for him to be able to escape Parliament in that way? That is the issue. Surely the——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Such matters are not for the Chair in this House. Doubtless the Leader of the House will have regard to what has been said and the force with which it was said. I call Mr. Peter Snape.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that while you were waiting to take your place in the Chair several points were made about pecuniary interests. We have had a vote on the 10 o'clock motion and from that a question arises about the Register of Members' Interests which, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is not yet available. Some hon. Members are anxious to discover who voted tonight and to establish what their business interests are. The vote on the 10 o'clock motion was inextricably linked with the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill; those who wanted the Bill passed voted for the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker on what will happen if the Bill is passed—having been given long and meticulous consideration — and a number of hon. Members prove to have had direct pecuniary interests. If there are enough of them, will their votes be cancelled, or will the Bill go through anyway?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks me to rule on a purely hypothetical matter. His question will be more relevant if and when the situation arises. The question of pecuniary interests is irrelevant to votes on procedural matters. As I said to the hon. Gentleman yesterday when he raised a similar point, I am quite sure


that all right hon. and hon. Members will vote in accordance with the Standing Orders and practices of the House.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you have rightly said, you have not been notified whether there will be a statement about the British Caledonian-British Airways merger. You pointed out that it was not a matter for you. However, I put it to you that you have a responsibility to the House. We all remember that in July when the merger of the two companies was initially proposed, the Minister of Trade and Industry, who is Lord Young's counterpart in this House, came here to answer a private notice question about the merger and to tell us whether the matter would be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Were we talking simply about the fact that the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is to be published tomorrow — about the precise timing and location of the report's publication—that would not be a matter for you,' Sir, or for the House, although all hon. Members object from time to time to information being made available to the press before it is made available to us. I understand that Lord Young has said that the report will be published and that a copy will be placed in the Library at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning; so far, so good.
However, much more pertinent is the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is to give his decision on the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission — on whether the merger is to be allowed to proceed as it stands, or allowed to proceed with conditions. These are matters of very great importance and concern to all hon. Members. I should have thought that Conservative Members who have shown as much concern and interest in these matters as Opposition Members would have supported the proposition that the Minister for Trade and Industry should come to the House at the earliest possible opportunity to make a statement on the decision.
Parallel with that, although it may not be our concern, is the fact that the rights and privileges of their lordships are at stake. The other place is part of Parliament and I should have thought that their lordships would be extremely upset that Lord Young is not to make a statement to them. In the past, the custom and practice has been that parallel statements are made at the same time in this House and in the other place [HON. MEMBERS: "This is disgraceful".] I completely agree with hon. Members who are making comments from a sedentary position. It is quite disgraceful that neither Lord Young nor his counterpart proposes to make a statement to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is retreading ground that has been covered already. I cannot usefully add to what I have said to the House. We should get on.

Mr. Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One thing seems to be becoming a behaviour pattern for the Government Front Bench when it comes to informing the House. I should like to refer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?

Mr. Grocott: My point of order is that the standards we have come to expect as Back Benchers are being flouted by the Government—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order, it must be a matter on which the Chair can rule. If it is not a matter on which the Chair can rule, we should proceed with the debate.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is in relation to the letter dated 9 November on House of Commons notepaper and submitted on behalf of the sponsors of the private Bill. It is to do with the film show this evening. I remember that recently Labour Members were refused the opportunity to see the Zircon film and had to ask the permission of the House to show the film. It may well be that the film at issue tonight is not of a security nature and may be to do with summer holidays run by the sponsors P and O. However, have the hon. Members involved obtained permission for the show to take place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must assume that the hon. Members have permission.

Mr. Bob Clay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a new point of order on which I ask you to rule. It arises from the letter mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). Several points of order took place on this matter earlier. Towards the end of those points of order the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, (Sir E. Griffiths), visiting our part of the Chamber, presumably to see the sponsors of the Bill, said that he had come to find out what the letter was about because he had only just found out about it. Several hon. Members heard him say that.
I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the lead signatory of a letter on House of Commons notepaper with the crest on it and possibly all the other signatories, or at least more than one of them, had no knowledge of the contents of the letter, a difficulty arises. The letter has been circulated to hon. Members, at the very least to influence them in their behaviour in some way, perhaps to persuade them to stay or to vote in a particular way. The intentions of the letter are clear. It may be that some hon. Members did not know whether to stay behind but looked at the letter and said, "If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is backing this"——

Mr. Grocott: I am going home.

Mr. Clay: They may have said that, which would have been extremely unfair to the sponsors of the Bill and would have meant that the letter had backfired, or they may have said, "He's a good chap so we will stay behind and support him." Either way——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to embellish and garnish his point of order in that fashion. My fellow Deputy Speaker dealt with that matter at some length at the commencement of our proceedings. None of the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman is a matter for the Chair and we should get on.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Some of the matters that are now being raised are dangerously close to being bogus points of order and seem to me to be intended to delay our proceedings. We really must get on.

Mr. Snape: I must say——

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Snape: —that all these points of order are ruining the flow of my speech and it may take me some time to return to the main point of my argument.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If I did not make it sufficiently clear I will do so now. I do not think it appropriate for hon. Members to continue to raise points of order at this time.

Mr. Snape: Before the 10 o'clock Division I was illustrating the difficulties which the Bill will cause to ports throughout the United Kingdom, and it is important to realise the amount of work that is taking place at various ports and the way in which that will add greatly to the overcapacity about which I spoke earlier.
On the east coast, for example, we must not consider the developments at Felixstowe in isolation. After all, at Hull a new passenger terminal has just been completed for use by North Sea Ferries. Close by, at Grimsby and Immingham, two other ABP ports, there is a graph of rising traffic. At Goole, also not far away, ABP is investing £1 million in container handling equipment. At Grimsby, a new facility operated by Humber Terminals was opened only last year. Close by are the ports of Teesside and Hartlepool. Further north, at Seaham, the port authority is investing £1·3 million on increasing its warehousing capacity. In Sunderland it is planned to develop a new ro-ro berth to serve the recently opened Nissan plant. Various schemes are afoot in the current financial year to improve the port of Tyne.
It should not be thought that the impact of the scheme that we are discussing will be felt simply on the east coast of England. If it gets the go-ahead unamended, problems will be caused, for example, to Scottish ports.

Mr. John Garrett: It might be wise for my hon. Friend, before leaving the east coast, to consider the effect of what is proposed on the port of Norwich, which, though it has modest traffic at present, has great scope for expansion, and many people hope that that expansion will come about.

Mr. Snape: I agree with my hon. Friend. Norwich will certainly be affected. The rules of order prevent me from referring to all 300 ports in the United Kingdom, but if any of my hon. Friends wish to intervene to point out the difficulties that will be caused to their constituencies, I shall be delighted to give way to them.

Mr. David Marshall: My hon. Friend referred in passing to the likely effect on Scottish ports. I am sure that all 50 Scottish Labour Members would be interested to hear how these proposals will affect their areas. Will my hon. Friend elaborate on that?

Mr. Snape: I know that my hon. Friends are anxious to be helpful at this stage in the debate. For example, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has a question about Scunthorpe and Humberside.

Mr. Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend may care to consider the effect of what is proposed in the Bill on the ports on the Humber estuary, including Goole, Immingham and Hull, plus many wharves along

the Trent and the Humber bank. These ports and wharves, by any standard, have adequate capacity to deal with the trade on the east coast and to and from Europe. It makes one wonder about the argument for expansion at Felixstowe and ask where the trade will come from. Although I can understand that there may be an argument for the people of Felixstowe to attract the trade, they must accept that that trade is finite and will be taken away from other ports, which will cause unemployment and——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I advise the hon. Gentleman and the House that the group of amendments before us deal with the dock labour scheme and whether Felixstowe should be excluded from the national dock labour scheme. I hope that hon. Members will direct their remarks to that matter.

Mr. Snape: May I point out that, in these amendments, we are considering the impact that the proposed scheme will have on ports covered by the national dock labour scheme. I wish it were possible to include Felixstowe in that scheme, although the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) might not agree and indeed, the promoters of the Bill would not be over-enthusiastic:

Mr. McNamara: With due respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) drew attention to specific ports that will be affected by the proposed scheme, namely Hull, Immingham, Goole and Grimsby on the Humber estuary and to the effect on those fly-by-nights on the wharves who are not members of the dock registered scheme although many of them would now like to be members.

Mr. Snape: I am grateful, even if you are not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that guidance from my hon. Friend. The fact is that the impact of the scheme under discussion would be felt throughout the 300 or so ports within the United Kingdom. For many years the Labour party has criticised the lack of a national ports policy. That lack is amply illustrated by the likely impact of the proposed scheme if the amendments are not accepted.

Mr. Peter Hardy: In south Yorkshire we have ambitions to see the development of Sheffield and the south Yorkshire navigation proceeding at a more acceptable pace to allow our docks to be developed. We have Rother port and——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Nowhere in south Yorkshire is within the scope of the national dock labour scheme.

Mr. Hardy: We wish our inland navigation, and the trade that it carries, to be developed to the point where we could apply to be within the scheme. The problem is—I should like my hon. Friend to comment on it—that the development——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not on this group of amendments.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend should try on the next group of amendments.
The confusion that has understandably arisen on this group of amendments is the direct result of the Government's failure to accept the need for any sort of a national ports policy. If the amendments are rejected, chaos will arise at other ports inside and outside the scheme.
We are considering the Bill in the context of all the ports competing against one another, and in our view that competition dramatically illustrates the lack of a national ports policy—a policy which has been advocated by the Labour party since the mid-1960s.
I hope that my hon. Friends will accept that I was undertaking a fairly careful summary tour of the United Kingdom and talking about the impact of the project on ports such as Aberdeen, which has a £31 million investment programme for the next decade. We must also consider the Forth ports. For example, Leith has recently installed a £1 million transit shed. At Belfast a number of projects are under development.
The great problem is that the overcapacity to which I have referred is, in any case, being increased by all the projects that are taking place around the country. But that overcapacity will be made dramatically worse by the Bill.
The purpose of our amendments is to reduce the impact of the project on other United Kingdom ports. The scheme will not marginally increase capacity at Felixstowe. In the past 20 years or so Felixstowe has risen from a virtual greenfield site to the successful port that it is today. It is through containers, which is the sort of traffic that other ports are competing for, that its capacity has increased dramatically in recent years. I make no specific complaint about that, but I hope that even Conservative Members who passionately support the Bill will concede that unless we have the opportunity to restrict growth in ports such as Felixstowe the overcapacity that all hon. Members accept exists, particularly on the east coast and in the south-east, will worsen.

Mr. Loyden: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is presently some control of the development of ports and that those controls complement his arguments about an organised regulated port transport industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that amendments to Bills in the past have virtually given licence to port developers to do what they will, where they will and when they will, and have destabilised the Government's ports policy? Does he also agree that, as an island nation, it is absolutely necessary for us in the long term to have an effective policy? The short-term considerations of developers are placing in jeopardy the whole future of the ports transport industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we can get back to the application of the dock labour scheme to Felixstowe.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend amply illustrated the dangers of uncontrolled expansion for the dock work labour scheme. The infrastructure that grew up around Liverpool was as a result of the expansion of that port in the latter part of the last century and, until the change in traffic patterns to which I referred earlier, particularly containerisation, the infrastructure of the port of Liverpool continued to grow. The problem with the Felixstowe project is that there is no mention of any infrastructure. P and O will not pay the infrastructure costs; it will be the taxpayer. We tabled the amendments because, as my hon. Friend said, the unrestricted growth of ports means that infrastructure costs fall on the taxpayer, even though that growth is damaging Britain's overall capacity. That is because there is a far greater capacity than any projections have envisaged over the next decade.

Mr. Grocott: Does my hon. Friend have any idea what the infrastructure costs will he? Hon. Members who are new to the arguments in the Bill would find it helpful in deciding how to vote if we had some indication of those Costs.

Mr. Snape: I do not know the costs, but one can easily envisage how those costs will come about. If the amendments are rejected, the development will go ahead, even more containers will pass through the port, and the local authorities, as well as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) and his colleagues from the area, will say that the infrastructure cannot cope with the increased traffic. The construction of a new railway line into the port of Felixstowe is a direct result of this expansion.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The amendments will stop that.

Mr. Snape: It is unusual for an ex-railwayman to stand at the Dispatch Box and speak in favour of an amendment that will stop railway development. However, despite my concern — some might even say passion — for railway development, I repeat the necessity for a national policy for railways as well as airports, because putting branch lines in one area does not make for an overall national industrial policy. However, I have been led astray by the reference to the new railway development at Felixstowe.

Mr. David Marshall: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) made a perfectly valid point about the port of Liverpool. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred to Aberdeen. I should like to draw his attention to Clyde ports——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that I had suggested that the hon. Member for Garston had not made a valid point. The amendments with which we are dealing are about the application of the national dock labour scheme to Felixstowe. They have nothing to do with the Clyde, or Liverpool or anywhere else.

Mr. Snape: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the amendments are about the impact of the development on the dock labour scheme nationwide. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) was quite right about the scheme ports in Scotland. Unless the amendments are accepted, there will be an impact as far afield as Scotland.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: No doubt without wishing to cause any offence, my hon. Friend stopped before he touched on the ports on the north side of the River Forth in my constituency. There is a great deal of concern amongst the smaller ports — particularly those to the south of Fife that exist on a marginal basis — about the effects that will ensue from the changes.
Will my hon. Friend, now or later, comment on the problems that might affect ports such as Kirkcaldy, and Burnt Island, which is mainly tied to imports of aluminium oxide that is used in the factory in the area?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) were persuaded to go along those lines he might be ruled out of order by the Chair.

Mr. Snape: I understand my hon. Friend's concern to bring forward constituency matters. I have to confess that the problems of Kirkcaldy and Burnt Island were not uppermost in my mind when I helped to table the amendments.
I realise that I may have tried your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during my short remarks, but this is a complex matter and group of amendments. It is, as I hope the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds agrees, a fundamental group of amendments.
I referred earlier to the NEDO report on "The Nation's Infrastructure Sea And Estuarial Ports". I want to repeat some of its recommendations. It, too, was concerned about the impact of uncontrolled development on existing scheme ports. A considerable amount of the report is devoted to the impact of the fixed link on Britain's ports. Having caused a little controversy by referring in passing to the project earlier, I am anxious to return the House to its normally placid and even tenor at this time of the night. In the chapter headed:
The future for UK ports
the report said
Ports will need to continue to adapt to meet changing needs. They are a service industry and suffer from uneven demands. A certain amount of over-capacity is therefore inevitable and even desirable. It is also accepted that world shipping is at present in a very depressed state and one of the few growth areas is passenger car traffic to the continent.
Paragraph 9.2 it said:
At the moment a certain amount of rationalisation of dock areas rather than port closures is going on, particularly by the newly privatised ABP company.
Again I have to point out that we are talking about an increase in capacity, a new development, when at the same time ABP is following a process of rationalisation which all of us know full well is the in jargon word for unemployment and redundancies among those who work in ABP ports. Is that what the promoters of the Bill intended? I am sure it is not, but that is what is inadvertently occurring.
In paragraph 9.2 the report also said:
In other cases improved or new facilities are being constructed to cater for known future shipper needs.
I will paraphrase this part. It talks about new berths at Dover to accommodate the larger ferries which Townsend Thoresen, now part of P and O, will shortly be introducing. Hon. Members will be aware that Dover, too, is outside the scheme. Since the acquisition of Townsend Thoresen by P and O it would appear that here are two non-scheme ports, both expanding, with inevitable damage to other ports where workers are organised directly within the dock labour scheme. In our view that is another strong argument for supporting the amendments.
Paragraph 9.2 also says:
Sealink Harbours Limited have a programme for updating some of their ports, many of which they acquired in a rather dilapidated condition"—
the cynics could interject immediately that they fixed them up cheaply—
whilst some port operators take a view that world shipping trade will again increase and are at present taking advantage of relatively cheap construction costs.
Again I press for support for the amendments. In the successful port of Felixstowe we are dealing in isolation with something that will have an enormous impact on other ports.

Mr. McNamara: Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the promoters of the Bill have considered the capacity of the Eurotunnel and the effect that will have on Felixstowe? Secondly, what effect will P and O's association with the Zeebrugge disaster and the terrible reputation it has gained over that episode have on the construction of ships? Should one not be looking for shorter——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. None of these matters seems to me to have anything to do with whether Felixstowe should be excluded from the national dock labour scheme.

Mr. Snape: Whatever our views on the fixed link, to which my hon. Friend referred, it will have an enormous impact on British ports policy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just made it clear that in the view of the Chair these matters have nothing to do with the amendments under consideration. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have regard to my ruling.

Mr. Snape: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I in no way challenge your ruling. If you stop for a moment, I think that you will agree that a good argument can be made in the context of the amendments on changes in deep sea container shipping patterns, some of which will be caused by Eurotunnel, and on ports that fall directly within the national dock labour scheme as well as Felixstowe and this development. But I shall not follow that line, because I know that at this time of the night we can all burn on fairly short fuses.
I have referred to some of the expansion schemes which would have an impact on this project. The news in other ports, including Greenock—another scheme port—is not good. One could argue that Greenock in Scotland will soon not be affected by the dock labour scheme because that port will close. Earlier this year, the Financial Times ran a report headed, "Scotland to lose container port as Greenock closes". That is an example of the diminution of the market in Scotland, yet there is expansion in the south of England.

Mr. David Marshall: That was the very point that I was going to make earlier. Dockers on the Clyde are losing their jobs because of Felixstowe's expansion. This exacerbates the north-south divide and creates two nations. The Bill will worsen the situation.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the crux of the problem. But if I started to debate the two nations problem and the north-south divide, I fear that even your well-renowned patience would be strained, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend has made the point amply, and perhaps we should leave it at that.
The criticism that is always levelled at the Labour party is that we knock down what the Conservatives put up but do not put forward any alternatives.

Mr. Robert Hayward: What about the policy review?

Mr. Snape: I like to kid myself that, if I am still doing this job, I might be involved in that. I make it up as I go along. I can always be outvoted at some time — [Interruption.] I am glad that my hon. Friends endorse this somewhat unorthodox approach to policy review.
The Labour party has tried for some 20 years to bring about the type of national policy which it wants. Such a


policy would be embraced if the Bill's promotors were wise enough to accept the amendments. As long ago as the early 1960s the Rochdale committee — I hazard a guess that that was a heavyweight bunch — chronicled the difficulties then being caused to Britain's port structure by the unco-ordinated approach that typified the, in some ways, nonsensical competition between ports, some of them on opposite sides of the same estuary.
Much play has been made of the Government's attitude to these matters. I have a copy of a speech by the former Secretary of State for Transport to the British Ports Association and the National Association of Port Employers on 16 April 1986. To be fair to him — I always like to be fair to Conservative Ministers, but I do not often get the opportunity — he also spoke of the difficulties. The transcript shows that he started his speech by saying:
Thanks for lunch and for the toast and the courteous speeches both Sir Frederic and Mr. Cooper made.
I am not sure whether it was Sir Frederic Bennett and Mr. Tommy Cooper who were involved in that lunch — [Interruption.] There is plenty more where that came from if hon. Members would like me to go through the speech of the former Secretary of State in detail.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should do that only if it relates to the national dock labour scheme and to Felixstowe.

11 pm

Mr. Snape: I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not think for a moment that if it did not, I would even draw the attention of the House to the subject. I would not dream of doing such a thing.
In his speech the Secretary of State talked about the problems facing the port industry then. Paraphrasing his comments, he referred to the lack of co-ordination within the port industry and said that that meant that British ports were at a competitive disadvantage against European ports. Again, there is more harmony about this matter than perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds would acknowledge. There are areas of agreement across the Chamber and we should not forget them.
Before the last general election, the Labour party produced a document proposing a proper harmonisation of the ports business in this country through the creation of a national ports authority. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds would agree with me, but I suggest that the creation of that authority would have enabled the owner of the port of Felixstowe—P and O — to put its suggestions for expansion to a national ports authority where it could have been dealt with in the context of its impact on other ports on the east coast and throughout the country.
I hope that Conservative Members will feel that the case for supporting the amendment has been made. I hope that the Minister will readily acknowledge and concede that that case has been made. I do not know whether I have succeeded in convincing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, but I hope at least that I have succeeded in convincing the Minister that the argument for a national ports authority is unchallengeable and that that argument is accepted by

all our competitors or partners—call them what we will—in the EEC who look with some amusement as well as bemusement at the lack of such a policy in the United Kingdom. I commend the amendment to the House on the ground that, by voting for it, the House will be accepting the need for such a policy within the United Kingdom.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I intervene briefly because the Bill is sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths).
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) drew attention to the impact of the expansion of Felixstowe on other ports. If Felixstowe wins business from other ports, that is because exporters find Felixstowe better for their business. That better value means more competitive exports, more business for our manufacturing industry and more jobs among our manufacturers. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East made it clear that the Labour party advocates a national ports policy which would restrict growth at Felixstowe. The effect of that would be to distort the pattern of transport through our ports and prevent manufacturers from utilising the most economic, cost-effective and appropriate port for their trade.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does not the Minister understand that we find it very difficult to accept that he can be objective about such matters when the company that we are discussing pays money to the Tory party? How can the Minister convince people in the country that he is being objective when the Conservatives are on the take as a party?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that my arguments will not be influenced by the point that he has just made. Moreover, my point is valid, whether it relates to Felixstowe or to any other port. I am saying that the Labour party's policies would distort the pattern of trade from what is most economic to what is less economic. The expense of that is in job losses in manufacturing industry, which is not able to utilise the most cost-effective way of moving its goods.
The main purpose of the amendments is to apply the dock labour scheme to the port of Felixstowe. I advise the House to reject them. Felixstowe is a non-scheme port. If the scheme is ever to apply to Felixstowe, it should be done openly by recognised procedure, and not introduced in a partial, back-door way. It would be absurd for most of a port to be outside the scheme, and a small part inside it. It would be equally absurd to classify this part of the site in the scheme port of Ipswich, which is 10 miles up the Orwell.
For those reasons, I recommend that the House reject the amendments.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 65.

Division No. 49]
[11.06 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beith, A. J.


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Ashby, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Atkinson, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Boswell, Tim






Bottomley, Peter
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Irvine, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Jackson, Robert


Brazier, Julian
Janman, Timothy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Jessel, Toby


Browne, John (Winchester)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Buck, Sir Antony
Kilfedder, James


Burns, Simon
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Burt, Alistair
Kirkhope, Timothy


Butler, Chris
Kirkwood, Archy


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Knapman, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Carrington, Matthew
Knowles, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Knox, David


Chapman, Sydney
Latham, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lawrence, Ivan


Colvin, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Couchman, James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cran, James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lightbown, David


Curry, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Davies, Q. (Staml'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lord, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
MacGregor, John


Day, Stephen
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Devlin, Tim
Maclean, David


Dorrell, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Major, Rt Hon John


Dover, Den
Mans, Keith


Durant, Tony
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Emery, Sir Peter
Mates, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hati'd)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Farr, Sir John
Miller, Hal


Favell, Tony
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Forman, Nigel
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Forth, Eric
Moss, Malcolm


Fox, Sir Marcus
Neubert, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Freeman, Roger
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


French, Douglas
Onslow, Cranley


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Gardiner, George
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Patnick, Irvine


Gill, Christopher
Pawsey, James


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Portillo, Michael


Gow, Ian
Redwood, John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Rhodes James, Robert


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Riddick, Graham


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Grist, Ian
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Ground, Patrick
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Rowe, Andrew


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ryder, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hanley, Jeremy
Scott, Nicholas


Hannam, John
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Harris, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hawkins, Christopher
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hayes, Jerry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hayward, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Sims, Roger


Hind, Kenneth
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Holt, Richard
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hordern, Sir Peter
Speed, Keith


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Stern, Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stevens, Lewis


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)





Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wallace, James


Summerson, Hugo
Waller, Gary


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Ward, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Watts, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wheeler, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thorne, Neil
Wilshire, David


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Tredinnick, David



Trippier, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Roger Moate.


Waddington, Rt Hon David





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Loyden, Eddie


Battle, John
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Marek, Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clay, Bob
Meale, Alan


Clelland, David
Michael, Alun


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Crowther, Stan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cunningham, Dr John
Morgan, Rhodri


Dalyell, Tam
Morley, Elliott


Darling, Alastair
Murphy, Paul


Dixon, Don
O'Neill, Martin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Patchett, Terry


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Pike, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foster, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Reid, John


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rooker, Jeff


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Skinner, Dennis


Grocott, Bruce
Snape, Peter


Hardy, Peter
Steinberg, Gerald


Henderson, Douglas
Strang, Gavin


Hinchliffe, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Home Robertson, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Vaz, Keith


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wareing, Robert N.


Ingram, Adam



Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Leadbirter, Ted
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Ron Davies.


Lewis, Terry



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 202

Division No. 50]
[11.20 pm


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Battle, John
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'ntn &amp; R'dish)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foster, Derek


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clay, Bob
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Crowther, Stan
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cunningham, Dr John
Grocott, Bruce


Dalyell, Tam
Hardy, Peter


Darling, Alastair
Henderson, Douglas


Dixon, Don
Hinchliffe, David






Home Robertson, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hood, James
Patchett, Terry


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pike, Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ingram, Adam
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Lewis, Terry
Rooker, Jeff


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Snape, Peter


McNamara, Kevin
Steinberg, Gerald


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Strang, Gavin


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Vaz, Keith


Meale, Alan
Wareing, Robert N.


Michael, Alun



Morgan, Rhodri
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morley, Elliott
Dr. Lewis Moonie and Mr. Ron Davies.


Murphy, Paul





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Ashby, David
Gow, Ian


Atkinson, David
Gower, Sir Raymond


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Beith, A. J.
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grist, Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brazier, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hannam, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Harris, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayes, Jerry


Burns, Simon
Hayward, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butler, Chris
Hind, Kenneth


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Holt, Richard


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Colvin, Michael
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cran, James
Irvine, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jackson, Robert


Curry, David
Janman, Timothy


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Devlin, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkwood, Archy


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knowles, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knox, David


Fallon, Michael
Latham, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan


Favell, Tony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forth, Eric
Lightbown, David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Franks, Cecil
Lord, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
MacGregor, John


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gardiner, George
Maclean, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John





Mans, Keith
Speed, Keith


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Stern, Michael


Miller, Hal
Stevens, Lewis


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Summerson, Hugo


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Paice, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thorne, Neil


Patnick, Irvine
Thurnham, Peter


Pawsey, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tracey, Richard


Portillo, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Redwood, John
Trippier, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Riddick, Graham
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wallace, James


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Roe, Mrs Marion
Ward, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Warren, Kenneth


Rowe, Andrew
Watts, John


Ryder, Richard
Wheeler, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Whitney, Ray


Scott, Nicholas
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wood, Timothy


Shersby, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Sims, Roger



Skeet, Sir Trevor
Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Roger Moate.


Soames, Hon Nicholas

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I refer you to "Erskine May" and ask you a question on the functions of the Committee and the House on private Bills. I hope you will bear with me while I make what I hope will be a detailed and erudite argument. I refer you to the first paragraph on page 893, which relates to the process by which Parliament passes public general Bills. I have no contention on that. The second paragraph states :
In passing private bills Parliament still exercises its legislative functions, but its proceedings partake also of a judicial character. The persons who are applying"——

Mr. Michael Fallon: Get to the point.

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman should listen, so he would understand the point I am getting to. On occasion, the House does not treat you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the Chair with the respect you deserve. It says :
The persons who are applying for powers or benefits appear as suitors for the Bill, while those who apprehend injury are admitted as adverse parties in the suit.
That refers to the procedures in Committee. An important characteristic which differentiates private Bill Committees from public Bill Committees is that hon. Members who serve on private Bill Committees sit in a quasi-judicial character.
Some hon. Members will understand my point, because about 12 months ago we had many debates on the nature


of the work of Committees and the role of Members. The Chairman of Ways and Means asserted that the role of a member of a Standing Committee on a private Bill was to act, not on behalf of a particular interest, but in a quasi-judicial capacity.
I raise two matters. First, I have a copy of the letter distributed tonight——

Mr. Fallon: Oh, no.

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman should listen to this. One of the members who served on the Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), is also one of the signatories to the letter. The hon. Member for Bristol, East is not acting in a quasi-judicial way, but has tried to induce his colleagues to vote on the Bill in a particular way.
Secondly, I raise a serious and heinous matter, which I tried to draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), but I could not find him. The guide of hon. Members says that one of his interests is home entertaining, so perhaps he is entertaining this evening on behalf of some outside organisation. The hon. Member for Crosby acted as the Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill, so, if anything, his responsibilities were even more quasi-judicial and impartial than those of other Committee members.
When I served on that Committee, I had a completely open mind about the facts that came before me. On every occasion, I tried to balance the evidence objectively. I examined it impartially and coolly. I tried to adduce facts from rhetoric, so that I could examine the details objectively to see whether the Bill was in the best interests of Britain. Since that was my responsibility, during our long sittings, I reminded myself that I had to handle the information objectively and in the best interests of the country. Anyone who serves in that quasi-judicial capacity has a similar responsibility, not just in Committee, but when the private Bill comes to the Floor of the House.
I would like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to rule on the behaviour of the hon. Member for Bristol, East, and especially on the behaviour of the hon. Member for Crosby, who was Chairman of that Committee. They should have acted in a quasi-judicial capacity but, by signing this letter, they are inviting hon. Members to support the Bill. They have moved from being impartial to being proponents of the Bill. That transgresses the rules of the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to tell me that he would raise this point of order. It is a very good try, but it has no relevance to the Chair. The House cannot go back to what went on in Committee. It is not a point of order with which the Chair should deal.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that the Chairman of a Standing Committee does not vote on the remaining stages of a Bill? You will be aware from your experience as the Chairman of many Standing Committees that it is almost a privilege of Chairmen that they do not vote on the remaining stages of Bills. It is odd that Chairmen of Standing Committees do not vote on Government business, whereas the Chairman of a Committee which considered a private Bill not only votes, but uses his name to persuade other hon. Members to vote in favour of the Bill.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We believe that the Committee proceedings on the Bill were not conducted fairly—that the Bill was not given a proper hearing—insofar as, in the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), the Committee of Selection selected someone who had a preconceived view as to what the conclusion of the Committee should be. The Bill should be withdrawn because it is clear that the proceedings in Committee were improper. It was a loaded Committee with a partial Chairman.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I will deal with those two points of order. Standing Committee Chairmen dealing with public Bills do not vote on later stages. But this is a private Bill being dealt with on the Floor of the House and it is up to any hon. Member to vote as he or she wishes. I will not ask the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to withdraw his criticism, but I hope that he will reconsider the remarks he made. If he has a criticism to make of anybody, he should table a substantive motion. Let us now get on.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: On a point or order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The group of amendments which the House will next discuss concern the position of Fagbury flats and the environmental consequences, and my hon. Friends and I will wish to raise the importance of food chains in the ecological system and the way in which, if a food chain is disturbed, populations rapidly decline.
Would it be in order, Madam Deputy Speaker — given that about 20 per cent. of Tory Members are no longer in their places, it having been announced that the food chain in the Jubilee Room has been cancelled—to raise such issues on those amendments?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I note that hon. Members are retaining their sense of humour, but we must now move on.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I listened to my hon. Friends refer to the conduct of the Chairman of the Committee I recalled a suggestion given by the then Deputy Speaker — I do not know whether you were in the House at the time, Madam Deputy Speaker — in 1981 on a measure dealing with Lloyd's. Most Tory Members involved abided by his advice. He said they should think carefully before taking part in a Division on what was a private Bill. Most of them heeded his remarks and did not take part in the voting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) pointed out that on this occasion the Chairman of the Committee advised his hon. Friends not merely to vote on the issue but to play an even more active role. It now becomes a question of what should be done with that Chairman, who ignored the advice of a previous Deputy Speaker on a similar type of Bill.
I remind you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there have been occasions when retrospective action has been taken against hon. Members who have acted in a way contrary to rulings given by the Chair. I am not for a moment suggesting that such action should be taken in this case, but in view of what has occurred, I suggest that an explanation should be sought from the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton). Accordingly, a personal


statement should be made by him, and I feel that it would not be wise to proceed with the Bill until that statement has been made.

Madam Deputy Speaker: No, I am not prepared to suspend proceedings on the Bill. No ruling has been broken and it is up to individual hon. Members, particularly on private Bills, to vote as they wish. They can accept or ignore guidance from the Chair, and if any hon. Member wishes to pursue this matter further a substantive motion should be tabled. What has been raised is not a matter for the Chair, and I think hon. Members know that. I hope that they will not pursue the matter further and that we can now proceed with the next group of amendments.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have made it clear that hon. Members are entitled to follow their conscience in this matter and accept their own guidance. Can you give us some help as to whether it is in order for hon. Members who have obviously been entertained by those people outside the House who have a vested interest——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have been down that path many times tonight. It is not a question for the Chair.

Mr. Davies: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has finished his point of order.

Clause 2

INTERPRETATION

Mr. Hardy: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 4 line 9, leave out 'or any land reclaimed.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 8 in clause 6, page 5 line 33, leave out
`enclosing an area of 95 hectares'.
No. 9, in page 5, line 39, leave out from 'and' to end of line 41 and insert
`contained within the limits shown on the deposited plans and described as "Limits of deviation work".'.
No. 12, in page 6, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 5.
No. 13, in page 6, line 2, after 'above', insert
`and subject to the consent in writing of the Secretary of State for the Environment.'.

Mr. Hardy: I immediately declare an interest. As the House may be aware, I am a member of the council for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I have a substantial interest, but it is not financial.
Amendment No. 2 seeks to alter clause 2 by leaving out the words "or any land reclaimed". The aim of the amendment is to remove the activity of creating reclaimed land from the work — [Interruption.] One would have imagined that Conservative Members had already had the opportunity to indulge themselves this evening. The aim of the amendment — I am sorry to repeat myself, but I am prepared to do so frequently to assist those Conservative Members who wish to listen to the argument——

Mr. Grocott: To give added credibility to my hon. Friend's remarks, will he confirm that no hospitality suite has been provided by the RSPB in the House?

Mr. Hardy: If there was one, some of us would have strong objections because we value the donations that we receive from scores of thousands of members of the society and it would mean that that money was ill used.
The aim of the amendment is to remove the activity of creating reclaimed land from the work definition in clause 2. At the same time, the amendment will remove reclaimed land from the "power to make work" in clause 6. Therefore, the amendment is substantial and goes right to the heart of the argument relating to the wild bird interest — the subject of so much controversy in the deliberations on the Bill.
I do not wish to detain the House for long on this amendment.

Mr. Ron Davies: Why not?

Mr. Hardy: I will explain in due course.
Those of my hon. Friends who are interested in ornithology will be aware that there are quite a number of species of wild bird in the locality—[Interruption.] I am trying to be helpful to Conservative Members and it is very sad that they are not paying attention. I should have thought that they would be delighted with what I am about to say.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend has mentioned the various species involved. Can he tell us whether the bartailed godwit is one of the species involved?

Mr. Hardy: It is not one of the species to which I will pay attention. Whether that bird will be mentioned in a subsequent amendment remains to he seen.

Mr. Davies: Is the turnstone one of the species involved?

Mr. Hardy: No doubt the turnstone will be considered during our considerations. However, as I do not wish to be accused of contributing in a contracted debate, I have decided to concentrate my remarks on the Brent goose and the widgeon.

Mr. Davies: I must confess that I have difficulty in distinguishing the Brent goose from the Canada goose. How does my hon. Friend distinguish those birds in the field?

Mr. Hardy: All will be revealed.

Mr. Terry Lewis: The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) said about my hon. Friend that he knew only about tits. Will my hon. Friend name all the birds that will be affected?

Mr. Hardy: If my hon. Friend is patient, by the time we reach the end of the debate he will have learned a great deal about the various species of bird found in the Felixstowe area.

Dr. John Marek: I am not a paid-up member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, but I have an intense interest in the birds' welfare. I hope that my hon. Friend will dwell in detail on the feeding grounds of birds for the benefit of hon. Members such as myself who do not have his knowledge. Any information that my hon. Friend can give will be very welcome.

Mr. Hardy: During that intervention I heard one of my hon. Friends say from a sedentary position that the hon.


Member for Tatton had gone. I imagine that those Conservative Members remaining share the lust for knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, (Dr. Marek).

Mr. Frank Cook: I am anxious that my hon. Friend should make clear that the tits that have an interest in Felixstowe are the one-winged variety and are not right-winged tits.

Mr. Hardy: Given the remarks that have been made from a sedentary position by Conservative Members and the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who has a profound interest in those matters, I think that is relevant. I had always understood that the hon. Member for Tatton was interested in opencast mining, an interest that some Labour Members do not enthuse about to the same extent. I will restrict my remarks on the amendments to the Brent goose and the widgeon because I do not want to prolong my contribution. I can illustrate the effects of the amendments by reference to only those two species. On other amendments I will speak about other species of birds, and hon. Members with an interest in ornithology will have an opportunity to contribute. I offer the assurance that, to help the House and to avoid causing indigestion to Conservative Members by going too far on the amendments, I will not deal with the whole range of species.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the point about Members' digestion, will my hon. Friend, when describing and identifying those birds, on each occasion tell us whether they are edible.

Mr. Hardy: When my hon. Friend rose to intervene I did not think what he was saying was relevant. However, I recall now that when, some years ago, we were debating the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, I had to make a necessarily lengthy speech about another species of bird — the goldeneye. Unfortunately, my speech was enormously lengthened by the intervention of an hon. Member—I am relieved to see that he is not with us this evening — who confessed to having eaten the bird. So, perhaps, while I am debating the birds that are important in the context of Felixstowe, some hon. Members may feel moved to confess that they have eaten these species. If they do, I am sure that we can forgive them if they confess in a contrite manner. The fact remains that the goldeneye is an attractive bird, and I suspect that some Conservative Members may have eaten it at some time.
12 midnight
We are not proposing that the birds should be considered this evening for culinary reasons. We are here because we want them and their habitat to be retained.

Mr. Ron Davies: Before my hon. Friend develops the theme of the culinary properties of the goldeneye, perhaps he will now answer the question that I asked him before: how would he distinguish between Brent and Canada geese at a glance in the field?

Mr. Hardy: To satisfy temporarily my hon. Friend's curiosity, I may say that the principal difference between the birds is one of size. However, I shall reveal more as we proceed. Before I discuss the Brent goose and the widgeon, I want to make some introductory remarks about the amendment.
The Bill aims at expanding the port of Felixstowe in a north-westerly direction up the Orwell estuary. That will involve dock construction and quay faces supported by heavy equipment such as cranes, fixed installations, towers and elevated lighting. Such construction will mean destroying critical inter-tidal areas comprising mud flats and salt marsh. As has been said earlier in the debate, there are some quaint names in the area, and the flats are known as the Fagbury flats.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend has come to an interesting point. I believe that the flats are famous for old oyster beds. Oyster are not now in common supply—they are sometimes polluted and rather suspect for consumption. Are the oyster beds first-class oyster beds, producing edible oysters to the advantage of the country?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Wentworth will deal in great detail with all those things.

Mr. Hardy: I shall try to deal with these matters in detail without detaining the House unduly. I am getting more exercise than I care for.

Mr. Ron Davies: In view of the problem that we have had on the Gower of oyster fishermen shooting oyster catchers, will my hon. Friend tell us whether a viable population of oyster catchers is associated with the oyster beds? If so, will the Bill prejudice the environment that is so necessary to their continued existence?

Mr. Hardy: So as not to detain the House unduly, I suggested that I would concentrate in this batch of amendments on the Brent goose and the widgeon. On a later batch of amendments one can properly consider the oyster catcher.

Mr. Skinner: It is not just a question of the birds. My hon. Friend is old enough to recall that, before Colchester became a league team, it got to the third round proper of the FA cup. When those responsible were asked why the team had made such magnificent progress, they said that they were feeding their team on the oysters off Fagbury flats. My hon. Friend may not want to deal with it now when he is talking about the widgeon, but when we get to that set of amendments he may want to dwell upon the fact that the Minister for Sport, for example, could do with a few oysters, along with his spinach. So it is a very important point, not just from the aspect of the birds.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Skinner: I was speaking about paragraph 2, by the way.

Mr. Hardy: We have to make sure in the hours that follow that we do not cast too many pearls before swine. That is not on any paragraph. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The food that can be extracted from Fagbury fiats might be more relevant to a subsequent amendment, probably No. 42.
Fagbury flats are vital. In a debate in the last Parliament I spoke about the relevance of this area to Britain's standing in international conservation. As chairman of the Council of Europe environment committee, I obviously have a considerable interest in Britain's standing in that respect. It is regrettable that after the Government have accepted that the area should be registered within the Ramsar convention as an important international wildlife resource to be safeguarded other


than at times of dire national need, they can so easily and lightheartedly allow this Ramsar site to be ruined despite the existence of vast alternatives for dock provision.
At a meeting this morning I noticed in a document which clearly had originated in the Department of the Environment a reference to the Minister of State being the important guest speaker at a reception to announce that Langstone and Chichester harbours were to be areas of special protection under the EC birds directive and would be recognised as internationally important wetlands under the Ramsar convention. There the Government were informing the world about that at the very time that all Conservative Members are united in seeking to remove from Ramsar protection a site of even more importance.

Mr. Ron Davies: May I assure my hon. Friend that his expertise on ornithology is well recognised in the House? Certainly my hon. Friends and I respect him for the wisdom and the care that he brings to these matters. Will he confirm that the site under discussion has already been indentified under the Ramsar convention as a site deserving special protection? Will my hon. Friend also say that it has been confirmed as a site deserving special protection under the EEC birds directive?

Mr. Hardy: I believe that, had the Bill not emerged, the area would be registered by now as an area of special protection under the EEC birds directive. The EEC would recognise that the ornithological and conservation interest in this site was such as to make it more than suitable for inclusion in the treaty.

Mr. Skinner: Reference to the Common Market—or the EEC, as my hon. Friend calls it — may be made from time to time in the debate. I am anxious to help my hon. Friend in everything he does to try to prevent the Bill from being used to extend the Felixstowe port, but he will begin to upset one or two of us if he keeps talking about the Common Market as though it were wonderful.
I do not for a moment think that the Common Market would have done anything to preserve this area. I know that my hon. Friend has views about this, but I hope that he will not upset some of us with this Common Market job. It has cost us £8 billion to be a member of this club. It could not do enough, even within the next 100 years, to pay East Anglian taxpayers back the money that they have poured in to the Common Market. Do not glorify the Common Market. My hon. Friend voted with me against it on 28 October 1971—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Member's deep interest in the Common Market, but we are debating amendments that do not relate to it.

Mr. Skinner: I just want to finish this point because it is——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who has the Floor, has taken the hon. Member's intervention on board.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will appreciate that I gave greater emphasis to the Ramsar convention, which has nothing to do with the Common Market, than to the EEC birds directive.

Mr. Ron Davies: I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) he will make it clear that the Ramsar convention has nothing to do with the Common Market.

Mr. Skinner: That is all right.

Mr. Davies: I am gratified to note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover understands that the Ramsar convention is an international convention. Ramsar is a small town in Iran, not an acronym. It was the site of the original international conference that ratified the treaty extending the protection of birds. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) makes it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover that the EEC, through the birds directive, has shown itself to be far more progressive than the Government. Whenever we——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that interventions are getting far too long and that the House is forgetting who has the Floor.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is stretching credulity. The suggestion that the EEC is more progressive than the Government is an accurate observation — but everything is more progressive than the Government.

Mr. Ron Davies: I was not suggesting for one moment that the EEC is more progressive on all matters. The EEC has taken initiatives on bird, environment and habitat protection, yet every time the Government have rejected EEC developments.

Mr. Hardy: There is some justice in my hon. Friend's point. If the EEC wished to improve nature conservation in Britain and Europe, I should be delighted. The only time that I get annoyed is when my committee and the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe take a forward step that is reported—if it is reported at all in the British press—as a decision from the EEC rather than from a body that I regard as rather more estimable.

Mr. Fatchett: I do not want to divert the argument any further about the merits of the Common Market although some interesting points have been made. Is not the real point that my hon. Friend should be making that we have an area of outstanding natural beauty which is very important for the ecological reasons that my hon. Friend has outlined, but the Government are trying to maintain the pretence in these procedures that they have no views on the matter? Our criticism is not whether the EEC is better than the Government or vice versa, but why the Government have no view on the matter. They should have a view and the truth is that they maintain the pretence, but they have a view which they hide behind a public corporation.

Mr. Hardy: That is relevant. However, worse than that, almost everything that has been said so far in connection with the amendment has been relevant to the responsibilities of the Department of the Environment. I can see that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) is now sitting on the Government Front Bench. He was a Minister in the DOE 10 years ago. However, I do not see anyone there who bears any responsibility for environment matters now, and that is a disgrace. We are


discussing the destruction of a Ramsar site and an EEC candidate site, yet not one Environment Minister is present.

Mr. Ron Davies: I had to table certain questions to the Department of the Environment last week and I know that my hon. Friend will be very interested to learn that the golden plover is a protected species under the EEC birds directive, but under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it is allowed as a quarry species. Will my hon. Friend tell us whether the golden plover is likely to lose any habitat or breeding habitat? If that is the case, as a natural consequence of the presumed passage of the Bill, should we attempt to put pressure on the Government to remove the golden plover from the schedule of quarry species in the 1981 Act?

Mr. Hardy: That was a relevant intervention. If the Government were really serious and believed that the national interest had to be served by the destruction of the site, one would imagine them telling the conservation bodies that recognise that they are engaged in dreadful destruction and want to make up for that by providing enhanced protection for those species which may be affected by the destruction. The golden plover may figure there, but as far as I am aware, it is not one of the significant species.

Mr. Skinner: I do not know whether the golden plover is actually the ringed plover——

Mr. Hardy: No.

Mr. Skinner: We live and we learn. From my information, to which I had intended to refer later but which I will mention now, according to the document sent to Opposition Members—and we did not have to go to the Jubilee Room to get it — 223 ringed plover are in danger. If my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is going to raise distractions about golden plovers, the result is that we will have to stay up all night. Some of us have come here to try to talk reason.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is suggesting for one moment that my constructive interventions on the relevance of the germane speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth was in any way intended to delay the——

Madame Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Hardy: Clearly the Committee is not eager to be as disciplined in its selection of birds to match amendments as I would have thought originally. To clarify the matter and assist the Committee, I can state that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) is more of an expert in ornithology than I.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that I would deal with the Brent goose and the widgeon on these amendments, to avoid tedious repetition. We may well talk about the ringed plover and the oyster catcher on the next amendment, as well as the dunlin, redshank and turnstone, which are also particularly important species in this regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, who is a distinguished ornithologist in his own right——

Mr. Grocott: And twitcher.

Mr. Hardy: The popular name for them is twitcher, as my hon. Friend points out.
Two years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe saw for himself a rare visitor to Britain which had wandered across the Atlantic, and which is still the subject of serious debate in ornithological circles. My hon. Friend may wish to identify the species concerned, because it will not be mentioned again.

Mr. Morley: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this an intervention?

Mr. Morley: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I should like to clarify some of the points that have been raised about the golden plover. That species is certainly affected — not only the Eurasian variety, but the lesser golden plover, both the North American and the Siberian races. I understand that the British Ornithologists Union intends shortly to separate the lesser golden plover into those two species, the North American and the Asian. That is of considerable importance. As for the Brent goose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is making a speech. If he wishes to catch my eye at some stage, I shall be perfectly willing to allow him to do so, but an intervention should be a question or a pertinent comment.

Mr. Hardy: I am most grateful for the information given by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ron Davies: It is common practice among those interested in ornithology not only to use the common names, such as golden plover, or Siberian golden plover, but—to differentiate precisely between the species—to use the Latin names. It is a matter of scientific precision. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) could consult our hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), so that we could be accurate about the species that we are discussing.
This is relevant, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the House is under an obligation, not only under EC regulations—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is desperately concerned about this——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's point has been taken. I repeat that interventions should be either questions or pertinent comments.

Mr. Hardy: You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suggest that my hon. Friends intervene rather less frequently. I had assumed that I would have sat down by now, but I have a good deal left to say. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly made a relevant point. If this debate is read internationally—it may be, because there is international interest in conservation—it is right that, to assist identification, I should tell the House that the Latin name of the Brent goose is Branta bernicula and that the Latin name of the widgeon is Anas penelope.

Mr. Skinner: Opposition Members are now talking in Latin. Only last week Tory Members of Parliament said that they wanted Latin to be part of the core curriculum. I am fighting against a national curriculum. I want to know about the 223 ringed plovers, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is only bothered about the 1,500 Brent geese and the 1,800 widgeon. The


minorities are being left out of the discussion. The Opposition have fought for years for minority interests, so my hon. Friend should stop speaking in Latin. It is linked to the Common Market.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend knows that Latin was spoken before the treaty of Rome was drafted, and Latin will no doubt be spoken when the treaty of Rome is no more than a memory.
I have assisted my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly by giving him the Latin names for the Brent goose and the widgeon. We should ensure that those who deal with conservation matters use scientific names for those birds. I hope to assist him further by providing the scientific identification of other birds.
The Brent goose and the widgeon are two very important birds. I shall deal later with the oyster catcher and the ringed plover.

Dr. Marek: Does my hon. Friend realise that this group of amendments is crucial? They cover all the birds that are to be found on these marshes. He said earlier that he would deal in detail with the oyster catcher. I do not want to rush my hon. Friend, but I hope that he will refer in detail to the oyster catcher and the ringed plover after he has dealt with the Brent goose and the widgeon.

Mr. Hardy: rose——

Mr. Ron Davies: Will my hon. Friend (Mr. Hardy) please refer to the importance of the area that lies between the low and the high tide marks? If that area is not covered by sea water, the invertebrates and the oyster catchers will suffer—as will the entire bird population that depends upon the intertidal area. The bartailed godwit will disappear, as will the golden plover and the oyster catcher.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am quite sure that, if he is given the opportunity, the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will make that quite clear.

Mr. Hardy: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Damage will be caused to the habitat if this amendment is not accepted. Conservative Members have remained silent so far, but many of them will wish to refer to the species that have already been mentioned and also to others that will be mentioned later.

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is being too kind to Conservative Members. He said that Conservative Members have remained silent so far, but my hon. Friend will recall that, when he referred to the importance of international conservation, Conservative Members laughed. The only conclusion to be drawn from that is that they are not interested in any of these birds.

Mr. Hardy: Perhaps I am being too generous; my hon. Friend is probably right—it is a matter for regret.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Speaking as a layman, are these oysters the type that produce pearls? If they are, surely by getting rid of them we are depriving the Tories of a huge economic advantage in the production of pearls in the oyster bed?

Mr. Hardy: The problem with oysters in British waters is that the rapacity of the people who own them is such that they do not allow the oyster to live long enough to produce a pearl of any substantial worth.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: As to oysters, will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that at one time the oyster was a significant ingredient in the traditional Lancashire hot-pot? However, the oyster beds were destroyed by the greed and rapacity of the owners, which is why it is so fundamentally important for the heritage of the nation, in a matter of such special scientific interest, that we preserve them.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend's intervention allows me to illustrate the imperfections of Government, in that not long ago large number of oyster catcher birds were shot in an authorised cull, which today the authorities would agree was unwise and unnecessary. I think that the authorities regret the destruction of the oyster catchers.

Mr. Fatchett: With regard to my previous intervention about the reaction of Tory Members, there may be some economic advantage in the shooting of the oyster catchers. Will my hon. Friend say whether any of these birds are quarry species under the definition of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981? That is a germane fact, so I hope that my hon. Friend will cover it in his speech.

Mr. Hardy: We will deal with that in due course, but of the quarry species the widgeon is probably the most common.

Mr. Ron Davies: I remind my hon. Friend that it is not only the widgeon that is in jeopardy. The golden plover, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is very worried about, is a quarry species under the 1981 Act. Licences are granted for the taking from the wild of peregrine falcons, sparrowhawks, merlins and golden plovers to use them as birds of falconry. Some Tory Members take delight in taking birds of prey from the wild and then training them for their own malicious and bloodthirsty purposes. We must ensure that the golden plover is protected.

Mr. Hardy: We seem to be devoting a considerable amount of attention to the golden plover. It did not figure in the count that has already been referred to, although I tend to agree with my hon. Friend's analysis.
If Tory Members have any interest in conservation, they cannot complain about the detailed attention that is being given by my hon. Friends to the amendment. They should consider my case, which I shall now advance in case I forget to do so later. When it considered the Bill, the Committee received a great deal of information.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: indicated assent.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds signified his assent to that proposition. He will accept that the Nature Conservancy Council did not give evidence to the Committee. The NCC possesses the most information about wildlife and nature matters on these islands. The Nature Conservancy Council should not have been prevented by the Department of the Environment from appearing before the Committee as a petitioner Once again, I regret that no Minister from the Department is present. Change proceeds slowly in Parliament. When an hon. Member makes a serious point, Ministers from the Department should be required to be here. Where are they? Have they gone away?

Mr. George Galloway: Perhaps they have gone shooting.

Mr. Hardy: As my hon. Friend says, perhaps they have gone shooting. Perhaps they have gone elsewhere, looking for champagne.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am sure that I do not need to remind my hon. Friend that, under the wildlife and countryside legislation, the taking of most quarry species between the hours of midnight and dawn is outlawed.

Mr. Hardy: Of course. My hon. Friend is right. I do not suggest that, at this time, Ministers from the Department of the Environment are taking any species, whether or not they be quarry species.

Mr. Skinner: rose——

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend must allow me to reply to one intervention before he offers another. Let us proceed in an orderly manner.
I do not in any way suggest that Ministers are breaking the law or that they are doing anything else that may be lawful but which may not be proper at this time. The fact remains that they are not here. One of the Ministers from the Department should be here.

Mr. Skinner: We should consider for a moment or two—not for too long because it would upset you Madam Deputy Speaker—where the other seven Ministers of the Department are. Some of them are gunmen. I want to know whether they plan to go out tomorrow and shoot the 223 ringed plover about which my hon. Friend will not speak. He will not even give us the Latin name for the ringed plover. Why does he not talk about them and the 576 turnstone? What are they? Never mind whether Tory Ministers will shoot the birds tomorrow—they probably will. We should concern ourselves with the small number of birds. If we lose some of the 1,800 widgeon there will still be some widgeon. If the 223 ringed plover go, there will be no ringed plover left. It is time that my hon. Friend talked about the small groups of birds that are in danger.

Mr. Hardy: First, I did not say that I would refuse to speak about the ringed plover—everything in its place. I suggested that, if my hon. Friend exercised a little patience and a little restraint, we shall deal with it. I tell him that Charadrius hiaticula is the latin name of the ringed plover. He asked about the turnstone. Its latin name is Arenaria interpres. I hope that I have enlightened my hon. Friend.
I indirectly referred to the ringed plover when I made the point that, together with the estuary of the River Stour, the Orwell site has been proposed for listing under the Ramsar convention and as a special area under the EEC directive.
A large part of the River Orwell, including the mud-flats and the adjacent salt marsh, has already been notified as a site of special scientific interest under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) may have enlightened my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but he has not enlightened me. I would like to be able to form a balanced judgment of the amendment. Apparently, there are only 223 ringed plovers on the marshes, whereas there are 1,800 widgeon. Does my hon. Friend know how many widgeon and how many golden ringed plovers there are in the United Kingdom as a whole and can he tell us the relative merits of each bird and how rare it is?

Mr. Hardy: I shall have to curtail my speech to assist my hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Ron Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hardy: No, I shall not give way for a few minutes. It is essential that we should proceed with the process of enlightenment so that my hon. Friends can understand the nature of the birds under serious threat.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover suggested that the ringed plover would die. My point is that all these representatives of species will die if the Bill goes through as drafted.

Mr. Davies: There is an important distinction to be drawn between the ringed plover and the golden plover. My hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) referred to the golden ringed plover, but in fact we are talking about two separate species, the ringed plover and the golden plover. We were told earlier that the golden plover receives special protection under the EC birds directive. At the same time, it is a quarry species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Let me put some simple questions to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). Will he tell us the Latin names so that we may be quite clear which species we are discussing and give us a ready field identification of the two species? Will he also tell us whether the ringed plover is a quarry species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act? If it is not, what steps would he propose to extend to the golden plover the protection afforded to the ringed plover?

Mr. Hardy: I subscribe to the view that the Department of the Environment should respond readily to the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council. I believe that the NCC should act quickly——

Mr. Skinner: Is that a quango?

Mr. Hardy: It is a reputable body that deserves considerable respect.

Mr. Skinner: Is it a quango?

Mr. Hardy: It is going that way, but it serves a necessary purpose. My hon. Friend will appreciate that I would much rather decisions were based on the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council than on Ministers getting out of bed the wrong side. Ministers deserve to get out of bed the wrong side tomorrow; they will no doubt be looking round to find out why their colleagues from the Department of the Environment were not here today. As it is, they are having to listen and are being enlightened, albeit reluctantly.
To assist my hon. Friends I should now discuss the two species of Branta bernicula, the Brent goose. My hon. Friends will recall that there were 1,500 at the relevant count and that only the widgeon and the dunlin were more numerous when the count took place. The Brent goose is one of the black geese——

Mr. Ron Davies: Are they edible?

Mr. Hardy: I do not think that my hon. Friend would like them; he might find widgeon rather more palatable. I do not suggest that any of the species should be eaten, although they might as well be eaten if the site is destroyed, because they will have nowhere else to go. I can imagine Conservative Members saying, "Well, they may as well grace our dinner tables as fly about looking vainly for somewhere to live."

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) talked about minority groups in the bird population. Is it not the case that there are two sub-species of Brent goose—Branta bernicula, the dark-bellied race which comes from northern Europe and Branta hrota, the pale-bellied race which comes from Greenland? Is it not also the case that there have been sightings in the area of the black-bellied Branta, which is a North American sub-species?

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is right. We shall now continue to educate the House.
The Brent goose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly will confirm, is the smallest of the wild geese. It is no larger than the drake mallard. It is about 23 in long and, if I have to use the decimal measures, it is about 58 or 59 cm on average. The smallest of the geese has a totally black head. The one to which I am referring is the smallest of the wholly black-necked geese. It has a black neck and upper breast, with a white patch on each side of the neck, back and rump. The wings are a dark grey-brown and the tail feathers are white. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly must allow me to complete this section of my speech. He should listen.
The underparts are slate grey in the dark-breasted geese, and they breed in Arctic Europe. That bird probably starts from the Taimyr peninsular in the north of Asia and flies all those hundreds of miles back to its home on the Orwell. If the Government have their way it will fly away to the Taimyr peninsula, then it will fly all those hundreds of miles back, and when it arrives where will its habitat have gone?

Mr. Skinner: I know where it will land. Those birds will finish up on a P and O liner breakfast table. It took me two hours to sus that out. There is money to be had, and it will start with the ringed plover. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) should deal with that matter. He says that there are different varieties of Brent geese. I accept that, but how many different varieties of ringed plover are there? If we are concerned about saving birds and preventing them from landing on the breakfast table of the P and O liner, we should concentrate on the small number of ringed plovers. Too much effort is being put into saving widgeon and Brent geese; it is time my hon. Friend turned his attention to the small groups, especially when the Liberal and Social Democratic party Members have not turned up to look after the minorities. They do not care about the ringed plovers. We have to represent them in the House.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend's concern does him a great deal of credit. I have known my hon. Friend for many years and I have never before seen him demonstrate innocence and naivety in the House. My hon Friend suspects that P and O will be serving ringed plover to its customers. I do not think that it will. That is not because of any compassion or commitment to conservation but because the ringed plover is much smaller than the Brent goose, which is a small goose. A Brent goose is 23 in long, but the ringed plover is about 7 in long. There is a lot more meat on a Brent goose than on a ringed plover.
Therefore, when Conservative Members and their friends see an opportunity to remove all those species and decide that, because they have no home to go to, they may

as well eat them, they will first be looking for the weightier birds that will be more nourishing and satisfying. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover would like the taste of the ringed plover. I have never tasted one, but no doubt some Conservative Members have.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Given the interest of our hon. and mutual Friend, the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in the ringed plover, would my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) care to speculate on whether his interest may be due to its characteristics? It is described as a bird having disrupted head and breast markings, rather like my hon. Friend, the Member for Bolsover. It is different because it is generally inconspicuous, but it becomes conspicuous when it calls or darts to catch prey, rather like my hon. Friend. Will my hon. Friend let us give him the bad news? While he is worried about the 223 ringed plovers, that figure referred only to the bad winter of 1984–85. Over 500 were counted at high tide between 1982–85, so the problem is more serious than the House has been led to believe.

Mr. Hardy: The point made by my hon. Friend is relevant. We are talking about one count for the season 1984–85. The number varies, although many species tend to be stable.

Mr. Skinner: That is why they travel south.

Mr. Hardy: Some travel south; otherwise, they may finish up on a supper table. My hon. Friends may be enlightened and intrigued if I complete the description of the Brent goose. I have mentioned the colour and said that they breed in Arctic Europe, although the paler grey breeds in Spitzbergen and Greenland. Wherever they breed in the northern areas——

Mr. Ron Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hardy: I will in a moment, but I want to finish the description. My hon. Friend referred to the absence from the debate of the minority parties. It is a pity, because they may have liked to hear, and perhaps copy, the distinctive sound the Brent goose makes. Its croaking noise, as far as it can be expressed in the English language, is a croaking 'Gruk, gruk, gruk'.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, some consideration ought to be paid to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), one of the key promoters of the Bill, who not only has his back to the Chair, but also is discussing ways and means of drawing the debate to a halt. I can hear him talking about when the closure will be moved. What right have Conservative hon. Members to talk about the closure?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is outside the normal speaking area of the Chamber. There is no point of order.

Dr. Marek: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been in the House for five years and have never seen Conservative Members lying flat on the bench with their feet on the seat, fast asleep. Is that in order?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The position any hon. Member wishes to take on the Benches has nothing to do with the Chair, but I expect hon. Members in any quarter of the House to show respect and decorum while in the Chamber.

Mr. Hardy: Perhaps it would be helpful to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) if a Brent goose


were to waddle through the chamber, put his beak to the hon. Member's ear and go 'Gruk, gruk, gruk'. We do not seem to have had any effect on the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that his recumbent position allows him comfortably to accept the arguments I am advancing.
I hope that I have said enough about the Brent goose to illustrates it attractive appearance——

Mr. Morley: Before my hon. Friend finishes with the Brent goose, will he confirm that it has a specialised diet of eel grass and weeds——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The diet of these fowl or fish has nothing to do with the amendment. I was about to ask the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) to speak more directly to the amendment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that this group of amendments relates specifically to reclaiming an area of marshes? If the land is reclaimed, the food which it provides for the birds will no longer be available. It should be in order for us to describe the problems that will be generated by the reclamation of the land for the birds which feed in the area.

Madam Deputy Speaker: We have had a very wide debate on this group of amendments. I have been very tolerant. It has been an interesting and illuminating debate, but the House must be brought back to the amendments on the amendment paper I ask the hon. Member for Wentworth to relate his speech more directly to the amendments.

Mr. Hardy: I shall do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I appeal to my hon. Friends to be careful when making their interesting interventions not to persuade me to say anything irrelevant. I shall now speak only to the amendment and will not be distracted. I ask my hon. Friends to think before they intervene.

Mr. Ron Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hardy: I hope that my hon. Friend has thought about it.

Mr. Davies: Every intervention in my hon. Friend's speech so far has been carefully thought out. Not only that, but if they had been out of order, I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would have ruled them out of order.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Indeed I would.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend has mentioned Brent geese. We are anxious to know the extent to which the feeding habits of Brent geese would be destroyed if the Bill was passed. My hon. Friend said that there are two subspecies of Brent geese——

Mr. Morley: Three.

Mr. Davies: That is a matter of ornithological dispute between me and my hon. Friend. I believe that there are two recognisable sub-species——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this an intervention or a speech? If it is an intervention, will the hon. Gentleman make his point so that it can be properly answered?

Mr. Davies: It is an intervention. I understand that there are two recognisable European sub-species of Brent

geese, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would say which sub-species he means. There is a general westward shift of the European population during the winter; perhaps my hon. Friend will say which sub-species will be affected by the Bill.

Mr. Hardy: I am talking about the darker — the black—bellied-Brent goose. I hope that that enlightens my hon. Friend.
The amendment relates to the inter-tidal mud flats and salt marshes where those species of bird obtain their rood. It will be impossible entirely to overlook their sources of food. I do not wish to press the point too much, but I may have to mention it when considering the other amendments in the group. We have accepted that amendment No. 2 is the most significant, as it involves an attempt to protect the mud flats, but amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are also worth mentioning. They would help to limit the environmental damage that would occur if the docks were extended and the mud flat and salt marsh were destroyed. They would change the approach being taken to the construction of the docks and at the same time would enable the company to go ahead. Because of that, I regard them as second best, and I hope that those who speak on behalf of the promoters will accept that the amendments enable some gesture to he made towards conservation.
1 am
Being proposed is the construction of a concrete island linked to the existing docks at Trinity terminal. The only attractive aspect of that is the alliterative quality of the title. Thus, dock movements could take place in the south-east of the development, and the north-west of this concrete peninsula would be left open so that much of the mud flat and salt marsh area would remain. This would provide for some of the birds an opportunity to survive — until no doubt the pollution which one associates with such developments kill them all off.
Conservative Members may feel that the company should be given carte blanche to destroy the area wholesale. We shall see when those who speak for the promoters comment on these amendments, which offer something of a halfway house.

Mr. Skinner: Would my hon. Friend explain which side of the quay is involved?

Mr. Hardy: The amendments refer to the construction of a quay frontage along the line intended by the company. My hon. Friend may care to consult the sketch map of the area. They would not allow the whole Fagbury flats to be reclaimed and would therefore apply to the seaward side of the concrete frontage.
Amendment No. 12 is consequential, so that if Nos. 8 and 9 are agreed to, No. 12 would also have to be accepted.
The RSPB has described these amendments as an imaginative suggestion which would reduce the need to enclose and reclaim areas of mud flat and salt marsh and would reduce to some extent the amount of damage that would be caused to the valuable wildlife habitat of the estuary. It will be interesting to learn whether those who support the Bill are prepared to accept these compromise amendments.

Mr. Skinner: One can never be sure how one change in the coastline in one particular area has relevance to a change that takes place in another part because of different tides and so on. I remember that when we were discussing


the Eastbourne Harbour Act 1980, which entailed changes to the entire coastline of that area, we had the same arguments about whether those changes would affect the birds and the marine life.
I know that my hon. Friend has great insight regarding wildlife and I wonder whether he has made any observations about what has happened to wildlife as a result of the Eastbourne marina development and the changes that have taken place at Brighton. If we can stop this Bill perhaps a visit could be arranged to Eastbourne to discuss with the RSPB, Greenpeace, the conservationists and so on the effects of those changes. That would be of some relevance to the area under consideration in this Bill.

Mr. Hardy: I am aware that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have cautioned us about our approach to the amendments, but I believe that my hon. Friend is right to refer to the chain effect that can occur. Dramatic and substantial developments in one area can have equally dramatic effects elsewhere.
A little while ago I prepared a report for the Council of Europe about the release of poison into the Rhine in Switzerland by the Sandoz plant at Basle. Some days later in the Netherlands people were not allowed to take water from the Rhine for drinking for a period of four days. We must recognise the effects that a change in one area can have on another. It is another argument in support of the amendments.
If hon. Members care to refresh their memories they will notice that amendment No. 13 states:
and subject to the consent in writing of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
It is yet another reason why a Minister from the Department of the Environment should be here. There is a specific reference to the ministerial responsibilities that that Department should exercise. All kinds of people are cluttering up the Treasury Bench this evening, but not one Minister from the Department of the Environment is present.
I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). He made such a convincing argument last night. I hope that he is paying attention to this Bill because he will discover that the arguments in support of our case are just as telling. The Secretary of State or one of his minions from the Department of the Environment should be here because we are seeking to assist them.

Mr. Skinner: Earlier I mentioned that perhaps Ministers were getting some shuteye, ready to shoot the birds on Fagbury flats. I would not wish to withdraw that comment, but I have reflected upon the fact that the Committee on the Local Government Bill is upstairs now. I do not think that it would be a bad idea if we could make sure that somebody was alerted in that Committee so that one of the Ministers for the Environment could come down here to listen to the debate and hear my hon. Friend's lucid arguments. If that request can be made through the Chair that is all well and good. One of the people on the Treasury Front Bench should go upstairs to see one of the Environment Ministers so that they can come down to the Chamber to participate fully in this debate.

Mr. Hardy: The Government have an almost obscene majority. They will have a majority in that Committee of at least three. Indeed, several of those members will have spent their time in the Corridor drinking tea instead of attending to the duties of the Committee. They would be better off coming down here. A Department of the Environment Minister should be present while we consider amendment No. 13 because it refers specifically to the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the Environment. I shall explain why. Conservative Members may then be so moved that one of them, or a Government Whip, will fetch a Minister to listen to my remarks.
The amendment is very straightforward and is not as convoluted as some that we consider. Its central intention is the protection of the environment. It proposes that the Secretary of State will have to consent before dock construction and related development can occur.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has stressed the point that a Minister from the Department of the Environment should be present. On reflection, is that such a great idea? We have an ex-Secretary of State for the Environment in the Chamber. This is just a suggestion, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend would be satisfied if the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) stood in. We know that he is trying to make a come-back to the Front Bench. It is not for Labour Members to get excited about who follows Thatcher, but there is just half a chance that, if he can get by the Mace without picking it up, he will be prepared to listen to the debate and shed some light on Fagbury flats.

Mr. Hardy: If the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) moved a little he would be standing at the Bar of the House. Some hon. Members have occasionally taken the view that the right hon. Gentleman deserved to be brought before the Bar of the House. I hope that I am not breaching parliamentary convention. When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State, he took a rather more helpful view about conservation than the present incumbent. That is not saying a lot, but on balance we accept that his decisions on the green belt and other conservations issues were more acceptable than the decisions of the present Secretary of State.
We take the view—and I think that it is a reasonable one—that the Secretary of State should ensure that all necessary steps are taken to protect wildlife. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Henley accepts that the Secretary of State is the guardian of the environment. Given that, we are entitled to ask not merely that a Minister should be present, but that the Secretary of State accepts the responsibilities conferred on him by the amendments.
On 15 July last year the House legislated to provide that, before primary works could take place, the consent of the Secretary of State for Transport had to be obtained. If the Secretary of State for Transport has to consent, why should not the Secretary of State for the Environment have to consent before we wipe out a site of national importance? I should have thought that the weight of responsibility was heavier in respect of the environment than of transport. The works under that legislation were defined as land reclaimed for dock construction and the Secretary of State had to be satisfied that that work would commence within a year and that there was no alternative


land available. I hope that when, in due course, I conclude my remarks, he will speak on behalf of the Bill's sponsors and give us the assurances that we seek.
I hope that hon. Members recognise the importance of the amendments, which would make the Secretary of State for the Environment responsible for ensuring that the environmental interest was protected at all times. They would also mean that the development could not proceed unless the Secretary of State was satisfied about that. In certain practical matters, for example, his influence could be crucial. He could ensure that the development took place at an appropriate time to minimise the harm to the bird population. He could also ensure that the whole approach was acceptable to conservation interests. Doing that would preserve some aspects of the SSSI approach, to which the Government have not paid sufficient attention.

Dr. Moonie: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the Secretary of State for the Environment, I want to dwell on an important point of public health, which is my particular interest. It concerns possible changes to the tidal flows, which, in turn, affect sewage outfalls. It is well known that semi-treated sewage, which we deposit so often in this country, is contaminated with bacteria of the salmonella group that are known to affect birds of the species to which my hon. Friend has referred. The natural diet of the birds includes grasses and weeds that are not usually contaminated, assuming that outfalls are far enough out to sea and not disturbed by changes in the hydrodynamic flow in the estuary concerned; but if changes occur to the outfalls because of works of the type that we are discussing, they will not necessarily be free of such contamination.

Mr. Hardy: I would not dream of disagreeing with my hon. Friend, who, in his short time in the House, has already demonstrated his profound knowledge of' matters of great concern.

Mr. Skinner: Just like Dr. Finlay.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is a real doctor, not a fictitious television personality.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) has a wonderful smooth voice and bedside manner. I should like to hear more of what he has to say. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) should lightly dismiss what my hon. Friend has to say. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth knows all about Brent geese and widgeon, but he does not care too much about ringed plover. If we have learned one thing this evening, it is that my hon. Friend does not care a great deal about 223 ringed plover. His heart lies with the Brent geese. I want my hon. Friend to pay some attention to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy said.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is too long, and he knows that to be the case. Will he now come to the point?

Mr. Skinner: If the sewage flow is changed, there will be a stink on Fagbury flats. That is not only a matter for the birds.

Mr. Hardy: The natural habitat of the British Isles is contracting. We should not seek to destroy the flora and

fauna further by these obnoxious and unpleasant smells or because of the misdirection of the sewerage system which could carry salmonella to the disadvantage of both human and animal species.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is right because he brings us back to the importance of the habitat. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I would illustrate the arguments on this batch of amendments with the widgeon and the Brent goose. We shall refer on subsequent amendments to that delightful bird, the ringed plover, which has commanded the attention of my hon. Friend.
The second species with which we should illustrate this group of amendments is the widgeon. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover seems to be complaining about my reference to the widgeon. If he would listen to the description of this bird, Mareca penelope, he would recognise why it should be protected and secured in this locality as well as in others. At rest the drake is distinctive. My hon. Friends will recognise that, as with most duck species, the drake is much more handsome and striking than the female. It has got a chestnut head, a buff crown, a grey underpart and a white line on the wing. In flight that white line is a very identifiable feature. It is not a large duck. It is slightly smaller than the mallard. It has a more peaked forehead, a pointed tail and what is described as green speckling. It makes a characteristic noise, a distinct call, whee hoo, which might even have woken those hon. Gentlemen who have slept during my remarks.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Give us a sample.

Mr. Hardy: I will not sing in the House because I think that it is against Standing Orders. Having quoted Latin during my speech, I would not wish to be then accused of breaking the customs and practices of Parliament by indulging in melodic offering. I merely say that the whee hoo call of the drake widgeon is a distinctive noise.
The widgeon flies very fast for a duck, often in small flocks. Some other points have to be considered by the House. It is a gregarious duck, like Conservative Members.

Mr. Ron Davies: Will my hon. Friend consider for a moment the qualities of the widgeon which, while giving it a certain attraction, are also a disadvantage because those very qualities of fast flight and the ability to rise rapidly from waterside vegetation make it an attractive bird for shooting? Is it a matter of regret——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again repeating himself.

Mr. Hardy: I think I understand the drift of my hon. Friend's concern. It is illustrated by the facts which are available to us and which are relevant to the debate. Recent study of the widgeon has shown that its numbers have grown in areas where full protection is afforded but have fallen markedly in areas where protection is not enjoyed, where Conservative Members go out to destroy them, whether at the proper time of the year or not. Since the widgeon is being persecuted by these people, the House has an obligation to ensure that it, like the Brent goose and the ringed plover, receives proper consideration. For that reason, our amendments are couched in terms that require the Secretary of State to be involved and works to be so curtailed as to contribute to the retention of the area's natural historical value.

Mr.Skinner: This is an interesting point. My hon. Friend says that some of these birds can weather environmental changes better than others. I suppose that that is true. My hon. Friend says that the ringed plover, of which there are now only 223, could weather the environmental changes just as well as the Brent goose and the widgeon. Would the population of ringed plovers be sustained if there were a massive change caused by the invasion of Fagbury flats, the salt marshes, and so on, taking away worms, crustaceans and other food? Will my hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable about these matters, explain which, among the Brent goose, the widgeon, the oyster catcher, the ringed plover, the dunlin, the red shank——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been down this path many times tonight. That has been made clear to us over the past hour or two.

Mr. Hardy: I may relieve my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover if I tell him that the count of 223 ringed plovers in that locality on one day was not the total population of ringed plovers in the British Isles. If it were, my hon. Friend might have been right in his suggestion that there is a similarity between the little ringed plover and the alliance parties.
The latest estimate I have seen on the mid-winter population of the ringed plover in the British Isles is between 10,000 and 15,000. That is obviously much higher than the strength of the alliance parties, certainly in terms of their membership in the House. But it is not so high a figure as could be lightly dismissed or assumed to be safe by Conservative Members.

Mr. Andy Stewart: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I am concerned about where all those birds will go, but I do know where all the parrots have gone!

Mr. Hardy: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman mentioned parrots. Only a short time ago, I saw photographs of dead parrots being transported by people who believe that market forces should prevail. Parrots are taken from the wild and destroyed on an enormous scale by people——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member, who has not been led astray much, will not blot his copybook at this stage.

Mr. Hardy: I accept the admonition that you offer, Madam Deputy Speaker. If we want to avoid the slaughter of the parrots, we must exercise a degree of caution. It is a degree of caution that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) has not shared, or he would have intervened much earlier and expressed a more genuine commitment.

Mr. Frank Cook: It may well be that my hon. Friend should concern himself with the fact that some Conservative Members are as sick as parrots—certainly, some of them are looking rather goosed. My hon. Friend may have misled my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and given him the wrong analysis in trying to allay his fears about the difference between the plover and the Brent goose. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) made the plea that the plover was in less danger than the Brent goose because the Brent goose had more meat on its body and therefore was more likely to be exterminated by the gunmen on the Government Benches. Clearly, my hon. Friend the

Member for Wentworth has forgotten that the upper classes have taken a decided liking in past centuries to delicacies including lark's tongue and such morsels.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not relating his remarks to the amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) should be a little more circumspect in his interventions. I made no reference to larks' tongues. No doubt if larks' tongues came between a Tory and his profit, the lark's tongue would be very swiftly sacrificed. However, we are not talking about larks' tongues because they are not particularly relevant to the amendment.

Mr. Cook: They are tasty morsels.

Mr. Hardy: Indeed they may be tasty morsels. I am reminded of a story which perhaps I had better not tell because I might be out of order if I did and I do not wish to incur the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker.
Suffice it to say that I hope that I said enough in the early part of my speech about Brent geese. In the latter part of my speech, I referred to the attractive drake widgeon and I suggested that it flies swiftly in small flocks. The fact that it flies swiftly may be part of the peril that it faces. Some of those Conservative Members who still shoot may well feel that the widgeon is a challenging target, as it is better to shoot a bird that flies fast than one that flies slowly. They can then boast about their marksmanship although I suggest that they would be better employed shooting at clay pigeons if the changes in firearms legislation do not prevent them from being sufficiently responsible to own, possess or have access to a firearm. They may argue that they should possess firearms to destroy humanely those birds whose habitat is likely to be destroyed.
I hope that some Conservative Members will recognise that the Brent geese that I described in the early part of my speech deserve to survive in this part of East Anglia and other parts of Britain where it lives and represents a substantial proportion of the international population.
Earlier I referred to my main concern to speak this evening as a member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds because of the importance of international conservation and the Ramsar convention.

Mr. Frank Cook: No financial support there.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend should understand that as far as I know, no hon. Member receives any financial remuneration from membership of conservation bodies and I would be very angry if any conservation body started to pay Conservative Members, as I know that no Opposition Members receive anything and nor should they.

Mr. Cook: Not even a glass of champagne.

Mr. Hardy: No, I do not think I have ever received a glass of champagne from a conservation body and I would not wish such a body to buy me one. That is to be reserved for the commercial organisations which more readily attract some Conservative Members than others. I am obliged that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has taken a more responsible approach than


some of his hon. Friends and has sat intently throughout the debate. I am conscious of the fact that he will be saying a few words later.
I hope that the comments from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will bring reassurance that profit will not dominate the entire consideration and acknowledge that the amendment deserves to be considered and accepted. I trust that that acceptance can be made clear to the House before very long and that the amendment will ensure that the widgeon, Brent geese and other species that will be mentioned in subsequent consideration of other amendments will continue to survive in those areas.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will recognise that the eel grass, algae, grasses of the mud flats and saltings of the area are important. If they are destroyed Britain will not simply lose an important and essential area of international habitat, but the Government will be seen to be guilty of a rather odious level of hypocrisy in having recognised that the matter is of' international significance and that the area should be protected at all costs—except at times of dire national need. If they accept that—and they accepted it when they signified their assent to the Ramsar convention—we are entitled to demand that Conservative Members and their supporters either act with consistency, or offer a profound apology, not only to those in Britain who are interested in conservation, but to the international bodies that they will have gravely and rather odiously misled.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am sure that the House is obliged to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for having taken us on a fascinating bird-watching excursion. I first became acquainted with Brent geese when I was responsible for a much more difficult piece of legislation relating to the ill-fated Maplin airport. At that time, we took considerable steps to estabilish whether it was possible to provide a new habitat for the geese in the Wash. So, like the hon. Gentleman, I have studied these matters with some interest.
When I was first asked to support this Bill in the House, I said — and I repeat it now — that, as a former Environment Minister, I could not back it unless I was satisfied that the environmental and ecological benefits that might flow from it would outweigh the environmental disbenefits that would undoubtedly arise. Consequently, once the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds became interested, I was very pleased that the Bill's promoters financed the most intensive survey of bird life in the area that has ever taken place. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Wentworth quoting some of the figures that arose from a survey that was promoted by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company.
The survey demonstrated that, of the 30 species of bird that occupy the area, three might be disturbed. I take that seriously, as do many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the promoters have taken a number of steps to meet the reasonable objections made by the RSPB. First, some 176 acres of what is now arable land will bo turned into wetlands for the benefit of the bird population: the promoters have entered into that commitment. I am afraid that it will involve one of the tenant farmers losing some of his land, but it is an agreement on which Trinity college—which is just as concerned about bird life and ecology as any hon. Member in the House — insisted. Secondly, lagoons will be provided for the birds; and, thirdly, there will be a large extension of trees. It seems to

me that the promoters have gone a long way to deal with the point that the hon. Member for Wentworth has been pressing on us for some time.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman referred to undertakings given by P and O. May I remind him that P and O gave undertakings to passengers on the Zeebrugge ferry? Those undertakings were empty, so why should we believe the present undertakings?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I do not propose to enter into that despicable argument. The undertakings were entered into by the board of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, and accepted by the Committee that considered the Bill, long before P and O had anything to do with it. The effect of these amendments was considered by the House in great detail on 15 July 1986.

Mr. Fatchett: As a member of the Committee, I heard the evidence that was given by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Is the RSPB happy with the company's commitment?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The RSPB said:
it would be possible to create a worthwhile reserve on these … marshes that would probably attract birds in nationally significant numbers.
The RSPB would like the promoters to go further, but at least it has said that.

Mr. Fatchett: So the answer is no.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: These amendments would make it impossible to reclaim any land. Consequently, they would wreck the Bill. Therefore, I cannot advise the House to accept them. However, I am able to offer one concession to the hon. Member for Wentworth. I hope that he will take it seriously and that in doing so I shall be able to attract his attention and that of the House.
Amendment No. 13 provides an important protection—that there shall be no reclamation unless the consent in writing of the Secretary of State for the Environment is obtained. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, that would be a very great protection. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the promoters are content to accept amendment No. 13, and I recommend it to the House.

Mr. John Garrett: My hon. Friend the Member far Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) dealt in detail with these amendments. I intend to refer specifically to amendment No. 2, thereby enabling the debate to be set in its broad environmental and ecological context.
Amendment No. 2 focuses on the environmental arguments against the Bill. It seeks to remove reclamation from its provisions. The argument must be set in its regional context. Environmental protection for East Anglia is essential——

Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend says that our hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) dealt wit h the broad details of this debate, but does not my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) accept that the debate was specific, in that my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth dealt with the consequences for a number of species of birds if these proposals are accepted? The amendment's purpose is wide-ranging, but the debate has focused on a number of consequences for various species of bird.

Mr. Garrett: That is true, but I construed the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth as being primarily concerned with two species.

Mr. Hardy: Only as examples.

Mr. Garrett: Yes. Other species will be dealt with later in the debate.
Environmental protection and the risk of destruction have to be set in their regional context, given the level of environmental destruction in East Anglia. Environmental protection is essential for East Anglia, and environmental destruction must be resisted by all possible means.

Mr. Ron Davies: I understand my hon. Friend's concern to set the debate in its regional context, but does he not accept that this area is important to birds that come to it in winter from Antarctica, the northern parts of Russia, Scandinavia, Greenland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a repetition of an argument that was put forward some time ago.

Mr. Ron Davies: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating himself. I am sure that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) will deal with the point.

Mr. Garrett: My hon. Friend's intervention was most illuminating, and perhaps he will develop it further on later amendments. This area is of international importance because of its value as wintering grounds for a variety of birds.
The destruction of sites of scientific interest and major areas of wildlife habitat is a substantial issue in East Anglia. I speak as a member of Friends of the Earth, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Norfolk Naturalists' Trust. I am a keen bird watcher in the improver class; I am not in the super-twitcher class of my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who has great knowledge of the specific species that live in the area.
Several authoritative surveys have shown how threatened the wildlife habitats and landscapes of East Anglia are.

Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) as a twitcher. The importance of this area is not in regard to the unique bird but the wide variety of regular birds. The importance of the area is a habitat for a large number of wintering birds and is important not only for twitchers but for people who are concerned about the environment generally.

Mr. Garrett: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) developed at some length the larger populations of birdlife that inhabit the area. I referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe as a twitcher, which for ornithologists is not a pejorative term but one of admiration. I hope that he will refer to the specimen species that occur in this area.

Dr. Marek: I recognise an expert when I see one, so will my hon. Friend throw some light on the statements by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who talked about the importance of the golden plover as opposed to the Brent goose or the widgeon? I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr.

Hardy) got to the bottom of this issue in his speech as to whether the site is of importance to the former or latter or for both categories of birds.

Mr. Garrett: I thought that the site was more important for the former, but the latter appears to have substantial representation. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, who knows not only the population of these birds but most of the individuals by name, will enlighten us in his speech.

Mr. Frank Cook: My hon. Friend is pointing out to the House—half of which is listening and half of which is not — the great importance of the scientific nature of these flats in East Anglia. They have achieved far greater national and international significance by virtue of the fact that the similar flats in the Tees estuary have been reduced from an area of 6,500 hectares to less than 400 hectares. The East Anglian flats are of more significance and importance than ever before.

Mr. Garrett: My hon. Friend is right. The level of destruction of wetlands in East Anglia is remarkable and is a matter that I hope to refer to later.
I was saying that several authoritative surveys have shown how threatened the wildlife habitat landscapes of East Anglia are today. Today only fragments remain of hedgerow, heath, natural woodlands and wetlands. Throughout the region, agricultural and commercial development has led to a massive loss of hedgerows, the ploughing of heathland and the destruction of wetlands. What we have left are mere fragments. For example, we must think of the enormous area covered by the brecklands in the last century. They are now reduced to little more than a Ministry of Defence danger area in the centre of Norfolk.
What we have left must be protected. One of the main objectives of the Bill is to destroy a wildlife habitat of the greatest international importance. In addition, the land has been and still is being soaked in nitrates, pesticides and herbicides, with unknown consequences. Goodness knows what disease and illness we shall visit on future generations as a result of the reckless use of herbicides and pesticides throughout East Anglia. Commercial development of the kind proposed will add to the problem. Statutory authorities have nowhere near the necessary resources to limit, control or reduce destruction. I shall give the House one or two local examples of the level of destruction that is going on in the region at this moment.

Mr. Ron Davies: While my hon. Friend considers the relevance of that point, will he bear in mind the analogy between the nitrate pollution of the East Anglian water supply with what happened throughout Britain in the 1950s and 1960s, when the widespread use of organic pesticides caused the virtual destruction of the sparrowhawk? The creation of infertility in the sparrowhawk led to the near obliteration of the species. Will my hon. Friend recognise that there is a real danger that the problems that existed with the sparrowhawk during those two decades are now likely to be replicated in the region that will be affected by the Bill?

Mr. Garrett: I agree with my hon. Friend. I shall refer to that matter in a short time.
The Anglian water authority area, within which the area that we are discussing is located, has a higher incidence of pesticides in waterways than any other water


authority in the country, according to the House of Commons Agriculture Committee second special report, session 1986–87, volume 1, entitled "The Effects of Pesticides on Human Health". I shall refer to paragraph 153.

Mr. Skinner: In some ways, my hon. Friend is bound to make a valuable contribution to the debate.

Mr. Davies: It is excellent.

Mr. Skinner: Not only that, but he represents an area in East Anglia. He has just spent a few years outside the House. Who knows, he could have been on Fagbury flats. I want my hon. Friend to tell us, based upon his knowledge of the broads, what effect the change in the broads has had on wildlife and how it could be used as a guide to what will happen if the Fagbury flats region is developed. Is there a parallel or analogy?

Mr. Garrett: There is a direct analogy between the gross pollution of the broads and the pollution which will be visited upon the area if the development is allowed to proceed.
As I was saying, the Anglian water authority area has an exceptionally high level of pesticides. After all, the Agriculture Committee is not noted for making remarks hostile to agriculture. Paragraph 153 of its report states:
The Anglia Water Authority provided evidence of contamination of both surface water and ground water. The principal pesticides detected in surface water were mecoprop, atrazine, simazin, dimechoate and lindane, which were each found regularly at the great majority of monitoring sites. Dimechoate, mecoprop and atrazine were also found at 10 per cent. of ground water monitoring sites".
The report continued:
We are particularly worried about contamination of ground water because exposure levels will be persistent and prolonged even if they are low.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that these worrying circumstances are being reported to the House for the first time? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will share my concern about the effects of lindane on bats, which have led the Nature Conservancy Council to take action to ensure that lindane is not used in areas inhabited by bats. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is danger not only to the ecosystem and to bird life but to some species of mammal not hitherto identified as being at risk?

Mr. Skinner: Who will speak up for the bats? That is the question.

Mr. Garrett: Bats are, indeed, affected by lindane, which is a wood treatment. I am not especially concerned about the bat population in the area. I suppose that I should be but given the absence of buildings in the area I reckon that there are relatively few bats.
The Select Committee on Agriculture report continued:
Although pesticides tend to degrade at different rates in the environment, the evidence available to us indicated that degradation in ground water is often very slow.
The development will have permanent effects with incalculable long-term consequences——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: As I understand the Bill, the company proposes that Trimley marshes should be used for bird resettlement. Does my hon. Friend know Trimley marshes, and has the area been polluted in any way over the years?

Mr. Garrett: I know Trimley marshes only from the air — from a Brent goose's point of view — so I do not

know to what extent they have been polluted. However, given the amount of agricultural run-off in the area there must be a high level of nitrates, for example.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If that is so, I wonder to what extent the company has investigated the matter. The company seems to believe that it will he adequate to give Trimley marshes over as a habitat for birds but it may be handing over land which has been insufficiently surveyed and which might cause them long-term damage.

Mr. Garrett: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) referred to an exhaustive survey of the flats. I am not sure whether a study has been made of the ecological condition of the Trimley marshes area, which is supposed to be turned into a bird reserve in place of Fagbury flats. Perhaps he will tell us whether the survey dealt with  the ecological condition of the marshes.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: No, it did not.

Mr. Garrett: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that we do not know the ecological or environmental condition of the area that is proposed as a substitute for that which is to be destroyed.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is quite a revelation. The company has proposed an alternative to appease the lobbies that wish to protect birds but it has not carried out work to establish whether damage would be done to the birds if the marshes became their new habitat. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who seems so well attuned to the promoters' aims, would do well to find that out for us so that we can assess the matter during the debate, because it may well be relevant to other amendments.

Mr. Garrett: My hon. Friend is right. We can refer to this matter in later amendments. Perhaps we can then probe the promoters of the Bill to try to establish the ecological and environmental quality of Trimley marshes, which is offered as a substitute for that which is to be destroyed. I hope that we can examine that at greater length.
2 am
The report to which I have referred discusses the wholesale destruction through the use of pesticides of the area proposed in the Bill for development. It says:
Pesticides may enter water supplies from a number of sources. These include careless overspraying of water courses, drains or standing water; run off from sprayed or treated areas; careless disposal of 'empty' containers, washing down of contaminated equipment, spills, and leaching from soil in treated areas. On occasion pesticides, particularly pyrethroids, are deliberately added to water supplies 'to control animal infestation in the distribution system.'

Mr. Ron Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is nothing wrong with the addition of pyrethroids because they are naturally occurring pesticides? The problems stem from the organic chlorides, which are artificially made and are destructive when they get into the food chain.

Mr. Garrett: My hon. Friend may be right, but, as far as I can tell, the Committee was taking a dim view of the practice in the section I quoted.

Mr. Skinner: Which of the birds will be affected the most? Will it be the little ringed plover, which is smaller than the ringed plover—I see that we have a different Deputy Speaker in the Chair and that it is now a different


ball game—or the Kentish plover? My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) has obviously seen those birds on Trimley marshes or on Fagbury flats.
It is no use trying to talk above people's heads and use long names for pesticides and so on. We should get down to the nitty gritty. What sort of chain reaction will occur to those little birds? That is the question. Are we going to allow the tyrants to do as they like in that area, upset the ecological chain and destroy the little ringed plovers, never mind the ringed plover, Kentish plover, Brent geese and the widgeon? Why do we not turn our attention to those little birds?

Mr. Garrett: My hon. Friend is right. My assumption is that the degree to which a bird would be affected by the pesticides would depend on body weight. Therefore, the little ringed plover would suffer the most from ingestion of pesticides.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) did not say a word about the little ringed plover in one hour and 45 minutes. He concentrated on widgeons and large geese. However, when the ecological chain begins to break down the first victims of the Bill introduced by the Tory despots will be the little ringed plover.

Mr. Garrett: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right. I find emotion taking over at this stage and I feel that I can hardly reply coherently.
There is an example of the interest and concern shown by the Government for the whole problem of pollution, particularly of sites of scientific interest. Paragraph 159 of the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture concluded:
The DoE's proposals on monitoring did not seem to us to amount to a coherent national policy. Witnesses from the Department expressed confidence that water authorities would voluntarily conduct appropriate monitoring if they were asked to do so and the letter of guidance, sent out in August 1986, gave advice on only 40 pesticides.

Dr. Moonie: There is no need for my hon. Friend to make an assumption about the relationship between body mass and the effects of organic pesticides; it is a well-documented fact.

Mr. Ron Davies: Declare an interest.

Dr. Moonie: I willingly declare an interest. This is one of the most interesting debates I have had the good fortune to take part in, and I look forward to it lasting as long as possible. I have learned an enormous amount, and I am certain that I will learn more when my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) speaks. The effects of organic pesticides are related to body mass. That is a fact, not an assumption. Therefore, one must ask whether any smaller birds in the area might also be affected.

Mr. Garrett: No doubt there are some smaller birds in the area, but I shall leave my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) to discuss the rarer small birds who are affected. I understand that on future amendments my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will discuss the condition of a couple of species per amendment, so that in the end birds both large and small are likely to be covered by him.

Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) has raised intriguing questions. He is correct in explaining that not only Brent Geese will be affected, but the Kentish plover and the little ringed plover. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) explained that birds of a much smaller body mass will be affected. Birds such as the tree pipit and the skylark, which exist on the shore line in large numbers, are not particularly important and certainly would not be covered under the terms of the Ramsar convention, nor would they be protected by the EEC directive.
They are important to the ecology of the eastern coast of England. I know that my Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is concerned about smaller birds. Perhaps he could discuss the importance of the area as an important breeding ground and wintering ground for skylarks.

Mr. Garrett: I was about to come to coastal ecology, but before I do I refer to sources of destruction of the wildlife habitat in East Anglia. Nitrate levels in water courses throughout East Anglia are at or near the EEC limits and often exceed them. There are often examples of nitrate pollution above the EEC levels. The discharge of household and industrial effluent has led to a concentration of phosphate and heavy metals in water courses which has severely damaged fish and bird populations. Then there is the gross sewage pollution of the coast and beaches. Some observations have been made by the Coastal Anti-Pollution League of East Anglia, Which informs me that the fish population has suffered noticeably.

Mr. Skinner: I wonder how migrant birds will be affected, because a considerable number come from Africa and elsewhere. There is a well-known bird in Africa, a migrant to Britain's shores, the thatcher bird. We are concerned about all birds. To what extent does my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) know of the existence of the thatcher bird on the Trimley marshes or the Fagbury flats? Has he ever been there, or does he get as far as Grantham and stop?

Mr. Garrett: There is no evidence of such a lethal predator being found in the area which we are discussing.

Dr. Moonie: Before we leave the effects of pollution on waterways, which we are rightly discussing in some depth, may I ask my hon. Friend about the type of pollutants that are found? He mentioned nitrates, organic pesticides and heavy metals. It is interesting that each group has a different method of action. Nitrates are not intrinsically damaging when they are concentrated; they cause most damage when they are converted to nitrosamines. Their action is local, especially in the gastro-intestinal system——

Mr. Morley: Of birds?

Dr. Moonie: Yes, of birds. I am not an expert on birds——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Briefly, please.

Dr. Moonie: I will be as brief as possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Organic pesticides are interesting, because they deposit at different rates in different tissues. Not only lean body mass, but the amount of fat on a bird is important, because organic pesticides are much more readily absorbed into fatty tissues then they are into muscle.


Heavy metals are deposited especially in bones. There are many different aspects, and it might be interesing to clarify——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief. I am beginning to have doubts about which hon. Member has the Floor.

Mr. Garrett: So am I, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend's intervention was most interesting, because he speaks from a medical viewpoint, whereas I am talking from an environmental and ecological viewpoint. He has demonstrated the sort of damage that can be done to birds, especially the little ringed plover, by the ingestion of residues from pesticides and heavy metals into their bone structure, their circulatory systems and their digestion systems. To that extent, his intervention was helpful.
The Coastal Anti-Pollution League study shows that that area of the coast has suffered especially from raw sewage being pumped into the sea. It states:
Over the past few years the fish population has noticeably suffered, and the Pink Shrimp (actually a small prawn) (Pandalus Montequii) have disappeared from the area, due to a wipe Out by sewage sludge of their prime food requirement the Ross Worm. Upon the shrimp depend the higher life forms, and the annual Cod have been absent this past year in the area. Sea Trout, another fishing dependency, is also reported to be low in numbers.
The residues from many lethal chemicals are working up the chain, first wiping out the shrimp—which is a small prawn — then the fish and ultimately the fish-eating birds.

Mr. Ron Davies: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of heavy metals and residues in animal matter, will he say whether he has any local knowledge of the lead poisoning that has been caused among wildfowl as a result of ingesting shot fired by wildfowlers and left in the natural environment? If we are worried, as we should be, about the damage caused to the ecology by the inadvertent deposition of heavy metals, we must give some consideration to the problems of lead shot and the deliberate pollution of the environment.

Mr. Garrett: As usual, my hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am not familiar with the effects of the ingestion of lead shot, but swans have suffered greatly from the ingestion of lead fishing weights, and I have no doubt that other birds have suffered from lead shot.

Dr. Moonie: The ingestion of lead shot might slow down the flight of the widgeon and that might have an effect on its survival.

Mr. Garrett: I am sure my hon. Friend is right ; the widgeon and other birds would be much less agile and able to escape predators if full of lead shot.
I was discussing the disappearance of fish species and pointing out how their numbers have been greatly reduced. All the species I named are dependent on clear and clean water and are to be found only in ideal tidal conditions which minimise pollution. In addition, hepatitis — a sewage-related infection—is a considerable worry along that coast for sea bathers.

Mr. Peter Pike: My hon. Friend will be aware that just before the election the Environment Select Committee published a report on river and estuary pollution, and that dealt with many of the points he has been making. As the Government have not responded to

that report and there has been no opportunity to debate it in the House, would it not be right for the promoters of the Bill, in the interests of parliamentary debate of these issues, to withdraw the Bill at this stage to enable the Government to respond to that report?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In responding to that point, I hope that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) will bear in mind that it would not be in order to broaden the debate; we are dealing with a specific amendment to a specific Bill.

Mr. Garrett: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, although my hon. Friend made a useful intervention, I will not respond to it.
Britain has some of the worst polluted beaches in the world and is responsible for over 90 per cent. of the sewage present in the North sea, due to direct dumping of untreated sewage and the practice of dumping extracted sewage sludge at sea. When asked by the EEC to list its bathing beaches, Britain came up, after a survey, with a mere 27, compared with 3,000 each in France and Italy, with shorter coastlines, and with 47 in Luxembourg, which has no coastline.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Garrett: I will not give way. I am discussing many of the dangers to the East Anglian environment which make it important for us to protect and not destroy the area.
In addition to sewage sludge on beaches, the accidental discharge of farm slurry and waste into rivers is a frequent problem. Our rivers, meres and broads, have become thick with algae and are lifeless. I know a site of scientific interest in south Norfolk which adjoins a field where the farmer finds it more profitable to dump slaughterhouse waste than to grow corn. He may also be dumping medical waste, with the result that, because the waste is insufficiently ploughed in, there is a pollution of that site of scientific interest. Many, if not most, of such sites in East Anglia are under constant threat and require close vigilance for their preservation.
The Government continually resist international attempts to limit the pollution of our wildlife habitats. A most important habitat is threatened by this Bill. We know that the Government have permitted safety levels for three notorious pesticides deilorin, aldrin, endrin to be relaxed by six times the recommended limit, allowing existiing levels of pollution to continue. In most of Europe and the United States that would be illegal. It is against that wider, regional background that we oppose the environmental destruction that is implicit in the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth has said, the proposed new docks in the Orwell estuary, known as Fagbury flats, is a major international site for wildlife. It is part of an area of outstanding natural beauty and a site of special scientific interest under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Under the Ramsar convention, it is a proposed site of a wetland of international importance. Indeed, it is a specially protected area under the EEC directive 79/409 for the conservation of wild birds.
The central point that has been argued over and over again on this group of amendments is that the Orwell


estuary is an internationally important area for over-wintering wildfowl and shore birds. In fact, the number of wading birds exceeds 10,000 in mid winter. The mud flats fulfil a vital function in providing habitat for those birds.
If the development goes ahead, there will be a substantial visual impact from the equipment such as towers, cranes and elevated lights. There will also be noise disturbance. The Suffolk county council planning department, in its report on the development, said that the dock extension cannot be effectively screened and that nothing can be done to reduce the loss of the inter-tidal features. It also said it was in direct conflict with national objectives for areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Abundant facts have been put forward by the conservation authorities to show that the status of the area is too important to be lost by the proposed development. Expert evidence has been made available by the RSPB, the British Trust for Ornithology and the Nature Conservancy Council.
If the area is reclaimed by the company, many birds will die because there the food resources — the worms and the crustaceans — are finite. If the birds try to find feeding areas elsewhere, they will be already occupied by other birds. Therefore, either they will be unable to find space and will die or they will displace other birds that will, in turn, die.
The area proposed to be destroyed by the development is irreplaceable. It has already been said on many occasions that the proposed development is a most important site in an area that is under constant threat from pollution, development and commercial activity.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has my hon. Friend noted the reference to the problems of noise that will arise in the event of the development of the dock adjacent to the marshes—I made that point earlier about the switch of bird habitat from the flats to Trimley marshes. To what extent will the noise affect the bird life? Will there be a net loss?

Mr. Garrett: I am sure that many birds will be disturbed by the noise of construction and the operation of the proposed development. I have no doubt that we shall lose some important species.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment that is crucial to maintain the ecological balance in the immediate area and the region.

Mr. David Mitchell: We have had a lengthy debate that has been extremely revealing of hon. Members' knowledge of widgeons, ring plovers, geese and even parrots.
On 15 July 1986 my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Transport the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) expressed the Government's view on the amendments under discussion and said that they should be rejected. Amendment No. 12 would undermine the whole purpose of the Bill and threaten the company's ability to carry out the works. Many of the anxieties expressed during the debate would be met if amendment No. 13 was incorporated in the Bill. Accordingly, I invite the House to accept amendment No. 13 but to reject amendment Nos. 2, 8, 9 and 12.

SIR ELDON GRIFFITHS rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 37.

Division No. 51]
[2.25 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Knapman, Roger


Amess, David
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Ashby, David
Lightbown, David


Atkinson, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Baldry, Tony
Lord, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Bevan, David Gilroy
MacGregor, John


Boswell, Tim
Maclean, David


Bottomley, Peter
Mans, Keith


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Brazier, Julian
Mates, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Browne, John (Winchester)
Miller, Hal


Burns, Simon
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Burt, Alistair
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Butler, Chris
Moate, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Monro, Sir Hector


Carrington, Matthew
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Moss, Malcolm


Colvin, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Cran, James
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Paice, James


Curry, David
Patnick, Irvine


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Pawsey, James


Day, Stephen
Porter, David (Waveney)


Devlin, Tim
Portillo, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Redwood, John


Durant, Tony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Emery, Sir Peter
Riddick, Graham


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Fallon, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Farr, Sir John
Ryder, Richard


Favell, Tony
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Forth, Eric
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Franks, Cecil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


French, Douglas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Gale, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George
Stern, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stevens, Lewis


Gill, Christopher
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Summerson, Hugo


Gow, Ian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Thornton, Malcolm


Hanley, Jeremy
Thurnham, Peter


Hannam, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Tracey, Richard


Harris, David
Tredinnick, David


Hayes, Jerry
Trippier, David


Hayward, Robert
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Warren, Kenneth


Hind, Kenneth
Watts, John


Holt, Richard
Wheeler, John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Whitney, Ray


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Wiggin, Jerry


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Wilshire, David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Wood, Timothy


Irvine, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Janman, Timothy



Jessel, Toby
Tellers for the Ayes:


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Patrick McLouehlin.


Kirkhope, Timothy





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn &amp; R'dish)


Battle, John
Campbell-Savours, D. N.






Clay, Bob
McCartney, Ian


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cunningham, Dr John
Marek, Dr John


Dalyell, Tam
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Martlew, Eric


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Meale, Alan


Fatchett, Derek
Michael, Alun


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Morley, Elliott


Galloway, George
Murphy, Paul


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Golding, Mrs Llin
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Skinner, Dennis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Steinberg, Gerald


Hardy, Peter
Strang, Gavin


Ingram, Adam



Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Peter L. Pike and Dr. Lewis Moonie.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)



Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

the House divided: Ayes 32. Noes 140.

Division No. 52]
[2.38 am


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lewis, Terry


Battle, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McCartney, Ian


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clay, Bob
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dalyell, Tam
Martlew, Eric


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morley, Elliott


Fatchett, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Galloway, George
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Steinberg, Gerald


Golding, Mrs Llin
Strang, Gavin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Hardy, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ingram, Adam
Mr. Peter Pike and Dr. Lewis Moonie.


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Farr, Sir John


Amess, David
Favell, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Ashby, David
Forth, Eric


Atkinson, David
Franks, Cecil


Baldry, Tony
French, Douglas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gale, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gardiner, George


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brooke. Hon Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gow, Ian


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Butler, Chris
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Carrington, Matthew
Hanley, Jeremy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hannam, John


Colvin, Michael
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Harris, David


Cran, James
Hayes, Jerry


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hayward, Robert


Curry, David
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Day, Stephen
Hind, Kenneth


Devlin, Tim
Holt, Richard


Dorrell, Stephen
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Durant, Tony
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Emery, Sir Peter
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Fallon, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)





Irvine, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Janman, Timothy
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stern, Michael


Lightbown, David
Stevens, Lewis


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


MacGregor, John
Summerson, Hugo


Maclean, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Miller, Hal
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B heath)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Tracey, Richard


Moate, Roger
Tredinnick, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Trippier, David


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Moss, Malcolm
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Neubert, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Watts, John


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Wheeler, John


Paice, James
Whitney, Ray


Patnick, Irvine
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Pawsey, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilshire, David


Portillo, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Redwood, John
Yeo, Tim


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



Riddick, Graham
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Rowe, Andrew

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

LIMITS OF DOCK

Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'and provided that the framework of the Dock Workers Employment Scheme is in no way impaired consequent on the removal of any area from the jurisdiction of the Ipswich Port Authority.'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:——

The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 139.

Division No. 53]
[2.51 am


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Loyden, Eddie


Battle, John
McCartney, Ian


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Marland, Paul


Clay, Bob
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Martlew, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Quin, Ms Joyce


Galloway, George
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Steinberg, Gerald


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Strang, Gavin


Hardy, Peter



Ingram, Adam
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Mr. Ron Davies and Mr. Peter L. Pike.


Lewis, Terry



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)







NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Amess, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Lightbown, David


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Ashby, David
Lord, Michael


Atkinson, David
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
MacGregor, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maclean, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Mans, Keith


Bottomley, Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Mates, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Brooke, Hon Peter
Miller, Hal


Browne, John (Winchester)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Burns, Simon
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Burt, Alistair
Moate, Roger


Butler, Chris
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Moss, Malcolm


Carrington, Matthew
Neubert, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Colvin, Michael
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Paice, James


Cran, James
Patnick, Irvine


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Pawsey, James


Curry, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Portillo, Michael


Day, Stephen
Redwood, John


Devlin, Tim
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dorrell, Stephen
Riddick, Graham


Durant, Tony
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Emery, Sir Peter
Rowe, Andrew


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Ryder, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Farr, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Favell, Tony
Shaw, David (Dover)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Forth, Eric
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Franks, Cecil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


French, Douglas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Gale, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George
Stern, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stevens, Lewis


Gill, Christopher
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Gow, Ian
Summerson, Hugo


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hanley, Jeremy
Thornton, Malcolm


Hannam, John
Thurnham, Peter


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Harris, David
Tracey, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Tredinnick, David


Hayward, Robert
Trippier, David


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hind, Kenneth
Warren, Kenneth


Holt, Richard
Watts, John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Wheeler, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Whitney, Ray


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Wilshire, David


Irvine, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Janman, Timothy
Yeo, Tim


Jessel, Toby



King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Knapman, Roger



Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6

POWER TO MAKE WORK

3 am

Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 5, line 33, leave out
'enclosing an area of 95 hectares'. — [Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 32, Noes 139.

Division No. 54]
[3.3 am


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Loyden, Eddie


Battle, John
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Marek, Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clay, Bob
Martlew, Eric


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Meale, Alan


Dalyell, Tarn
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Morley, Elliott


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Pike, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Skinner, Dennis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Steinberg, Gerald


Hardy, Peter
Strang, Gavin


Ingram, Adam



Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Ian McCartney and Mrs. Maria Fyfe.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Amess, David
Gow, Ian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Ashby, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Atkinson, David
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Baldry, Tony
Hanley, Jeremy


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hannam, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bottomley, Peter
Harris, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hayes, Jerry


Brazier, Julian
Hayward, Robert


Brooke, Hon Peter
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Burns, Simon
Hind, Kenneth


Burt, Alistair
Holt, Richard


Butler, Chris
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carrington, Matthew
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irvine, Michael


Cran, James
Janman, Timothy


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Day, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Durant, Tony
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lightbown, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fallon, Michael
Lord, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Favell, Tony
MacGregor, John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
Mans, Keith


Franks, Cecil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


French, Douglas
Mates, Michael


Gale, Roger
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gardiner, George
Miller, Hal


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moate, Roger






Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Moss, Malcolm
Summerson, Hugo


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Paice, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patnick, Irvine
Thornton, Malcolm


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Portillo, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Redwood, John
Tredinnick, David


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Trippier, David


Riddick, Graham
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rowe, Andrew
Warren, Kenneth


Ryder, Richard
Watts, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wheeler, John


Scott, Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, David (Dover)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wiggin, Jerry


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wood, Timothy


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Stanbrook, Ivor



Stern, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Stevens, Lewis
Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)



Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 13, in page 6, line 2, after 'above', insert
'and subject to the consent in writing of the Secretary of State for the Environment.'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 2.

Division No. 55]
[3.15 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forth, Eric


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Franks, Cecil


Ashby, David
French, Douglas


Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Battle, John
Gardiner, George


Bellingham, Henry
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gill, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bottomley, Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gow, Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Butler, Chris
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Carrington, Matthew
Hanley, Jeremy


Clay, Bob
Hardy, Peter


Colvin, Michael
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Harris, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hayes, Jerry


Cran, James
Hayward, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David
Hind, Kenneth


Dalyell, Tarn
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Day, Stephen
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Devlin, Tim
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Durant, Tony
Ingram, Adam


Emery, Sir Peter
Irvine, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Janman, Timothy


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Jessel, Toby


Fallon, Michael
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Farr, Sir John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Favell, Tony
Kirkhope, Timothy





Knapman, Roger
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Riddick, Graham


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Rowe, Andrew


Lewis, Terry
Ryder, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Scott, Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Loyden, Eddie
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


McCartney, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maclean, David
Steinberg, Gerald


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stevens, Lewis


Marek, Dr John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Strang, Gavin


Martlew, Eric
Summerson, Hugo


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Meale, Alan
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Miller, Hal
Thornton, Malcolm


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Tracey, Richard


Moate, Roger
Tredinnick, David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Trippier, David


Morley, Elliott
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moss, Malcolm
Wheeler, John


Neubert, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Paice, James
Wilshire, David


Patnick, Irvine
Wood, Timothy


Pawsey, James
Yeo, Tim


Pike, Peter



Porter, David (Waveney)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Portillo, Michael
Mr. Ron Davies and Mrs. Maria Fyfe.


Quin, Ms Joyce



Redwood, John





NOES


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Derek Fatchett and Mr. Harry Barnes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 7

RESTRICTION ON DEPOSIT OF MATERIAL

Mr. Morley: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 13, leave out 'one' and insert 'three'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 16, in page 6, line 26, after 'engineering', insert 'and environmental.'.
No. 17, in page 6, leave out lines 27 to 36.

Mr. Morley: I shall give the House a brief synopsis of each amendment. Amendment No. 15 deals with the notice that must be given to the two councils in the area—the county council and the district council. The Bill proposes a period of one month, but the amendment would change that to three months to bring it in line with the notice that must be given to the Nature Conservancy Council if sites of special scientific interest are disturbed.
Amendment No. 16 would include environmental factors, and seeks to insert the words "and environmental" after the word "engineering". In any construction, the ecological importance—[Interruption.]

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you ask the hon. Members who are standing at the Bar of the House, causing a great disturbance, to leave the Chamber so that my hon. Friend can speak to the amendments with a modicum of dignity?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask hon. Members who are not listening to the debate not to carry on conversations at the Bar of the House.

Mr. Morley: Amendment No. 16 seeks to include environmental considerations when decisions are made about construction.
Amendment No. 17 seeks to delete an ambiguous part of the clause dealing with the way in which the shore line will he left by the spoil and infill. The Bill talks about a "smooth shore line". I am not sure what that means. It could be loophole which would allow the company to deposit any sort of infill that it wished.
3.30 am
For the benefit of hon. Members who were not present for the earlier part of the debate, I will explain what we are talking about. Basically, we are discussing the expansion of the port of Felixstowe and the construction of new docks on the Orwell estuary. This will have the side effect of destroying a whole part of an area of inter-tidal land which comprises mud flats, salt marsh and old oyster beds. This area is known as Fagbury flats and is recognised as being of critical importance in environmental and conservation terms.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) talked about Maplin sands and Brent geese. I recall it being concluded that it was not possible to relocate the Brent geese environmentally to the Wash. That was one reason why an airport at Maplin was rejected.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend speaks of the difficulty of moving wild birds from one habitat to another. Why is it so difficult environmentally to move them? What is the main problem?

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend's intervention enables me to explain the position more fully, and to comment on another point made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. The company has claimed that it will offer an area known as Trimley marshes in compensation for the inter-tidal zone which will be destroyed. The area of Trimley marshes is arable land.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the area is of such importance, not only nationally but internationally, that it has been designated a site deserving of special protection under the Ramsar convention?

Mr. Morley: Not only is my hon. Friend correct to say that under the Ramsar convention it is a wetland of international importance, but it is a designated site of special scientific interest. It is also part of an area of outstanding natural beauty, a point that has not been mentioned in the debate.
As for the difficulty involved in relocating wildlife, this is an area of inter-tidal zone. It contains a large proportion of such food sources for birds as invertebrates, worms, cockles and mussels.

Dr. Marek: Why has this been designated a Ramsar convention site? I ask that in connection with amendment No. 16 and the mention of engineering and environmental works of which notice must or must not be given. I

examined the map which is in the possession of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and found it difficult to envisage that the Trimley marshes contained so much arable land. What percentage of the marshes is at present arable land?

Mr. Morley: The recommendation has been made by the Ramsar convention because it is an area that has been identified by environmental organisations in this country, along with many sites in the United Kingdom, as one of international importance as it supports not only a large proportion of wintering waders and wintering wildfowl, but it is also an important stop-over site for migrating birds.
To remove such a site as part of the dock development would cause an imbalance in the total ecological chain that is important to the wintering cycle of European and other continental species. It is also important as a stop-over site for native species.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I press my hon. Friend on this important point. I have a map, that some of my hon. Friends have been able to see, showing the area of sandbank and the adjacent area of Trimley marshes. We cannot understand why it is impracticable for birds to move from their habitat on the silted areas to the Trimley marshes. What is the environmental difference that would prevent that movement? If we could prove that that move was insuperable much of the case of the promoters would fall. I might say, for the interest of the House, that my hon. Friend is a world authority on these matters.

Mr. Fatchett: At least.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am told that, even last Sunday, he was out ringing and labelling birds. He obviously knows about these matters and I am sure that the House would like to hear his views on this switch.

Mr. Morley: A little knowledge does not make one a world authority.
The important fact about the marshes to the north is that, for some period of time, the salt element has been leached out because of freshwater rainfall and therefore it does not have the same make-up as the salt marshes. It does not support the same number of invertebrate species. However, left as it is, it does provide a valuable habitat that is ideal for breeding birds such as redshanks and lapwing.

Mr. Ron Davies: Is that advantage offset, to some extent, by the fact that, as it is within the area covered by the North Atlantic drift, it is ice-free and therefore, despite the problem with the saline content, there will be a large migration of population from the nordic and palaeartic areas for feeding?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This discussion is beginning to have the familiar ring of an earlier debate. I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the clause is headed:
Restriction on deposit of material
The main amendment deals with the time limit and whether it should be one month or three months. The hon. Gentleman must stick to that amendment and the two that are grouped with it.

Mr. Morley: I bow to your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Amendment 16 is clear regarding the importance


of the word environmental. I am seeking to explain the environmental consequences for the area and the consequences of the engineering construction.
The infill, during construction, will also have environmental consequences. When that infill starts it will destroy a site of special scientific interest and will alter the environmental make-up of the area. We have no idea where that infill will come from. It may be contaminated.
Even in the short term such infilling will cause an environmental imbalance, as it will muddy the water. Indeed the site may well require dredging by heavy earth-moving machinery. There have been instances in estuaries such as the Orwell when, over a period, an accumulation of heavy metals in the mud occurs. If that mud is disturbed the long-term accumulation of heavy metals can be suspended in the inter-tidal zone and that heavy metal may then be left on the mud flats with disastrous environmental consequences, such as those experienced in the Mersey.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the House has just passed an amendment whereby none of the works for reclamation can commence without the consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Because of his statutory duties my right hon. Friend must take into account the factors with which the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned.

Mr. Morley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments. It is a serious matter and I hope that the Secretary of State will take account of it.

Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend should not place too much faith in the judgment of the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) should not say that it is my amendment. It is a free vote. Labour Members are not being whipped. We are not being lined up outside with our glasses of champagne and being asked to vote. The House was split on the last vote because of a genuine difference of opinion. The Secretary of State for Wales is sponsoring a motion that similarly will result in the destruction of a site of special scientific interest in Cardiff bay. Therefore, my hon. Friend should not have too much faith in either the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Secretary of State for Wales ensuring an adequate level of environmental protection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Incidental reference to that is in order. but we cannot return to a debate on an amendment that has already been dealt with.

Mr. Hardy: I suggest to my hon. Friend that, if the Secretary of State for the Environment considered the matter fairly and reasonably, he would perhaps come to the conclusion that he could not expect any responsible local authority satisfactorily to respond to the one-month notice in the Bill, and that he may well agree that three months is a more reasonable period.

Mr. Morley: We are talking about a major civil engineering project and about large numbers of heavy vehicles moving through narrow roads and passing inhabited areas. Local councils would need as much notice as possible to prepare their traffic management schemes, to ensure that the movement of vehicles is properly controlled and to be satisfied as to the areas where the construction was to take place and the first deposits were

to be made. Extending the notice from one month to three months is reasonable, and I find it difficult to believe that any hon. Member would oppose that.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Is the timing of the activities significant? One has to consider the nesting time of different species of birds. Could my hon. Friend enlighten us?

Mr. Morley: It is not only the nesting season that is important in the marshes to the north of the site, but the migration periods. It has already been mentioned that birds are attracted to our country because the mud flats do not freeze during the winter. Large numbers of wildfowl migrate to the site in winter. Construction during winter would disturb the wildfowl, the Brent geese and the waders. Winter is a time when most species need to feed to increase their body weight so that they can survive the harsh times.

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend has just convinced me. However, while he claims that his amendment is moderate, by the very nature of his argument, should not the notice be longer than three months to take account of the mating and nesting patterns of birds? Does my hon. Friend agree with the points I have made, or does he think that he is misleading the House and cheating in some way?

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend has raised a pertinent point. As I have already said, the three-month period was designed to bring the Bill into line with the notification that must be given now for any sort of disturbance of a site of scientific interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We are discussing a major site of special scientific interest. That is why there has been so much environmental opposition to such a disturbance.

Mr. McCartney: I shall give my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) a rest.
I am intrigued by the arguments about the special ecological problems of the area and the importance of maintaining an ecological balance. I am, however, rather surprised that no one—neither the Bill's sponsors nor those who have moved amendments to it—has spoken about the EEC directive on environmental impact studies. This is an area that falls within the scope of that directive, which has been accepted by the Department of the Environment.
Why did not the sponsors of the Bill voluntarily get together with the county council at the outset of planning procedures, to set out in detail, through such an impact study, the project's effects on the ecology and manpower resources? Have the sponsors made any effort to link up with the county council in such a study?

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend has made a pertinent point. As far as we know, there has been no such link-up with the county council. It is because of our concern that the Bill does not seem to take the environmental implications seriously that we want to amend and strengthen it. The harbour board has not seriously considered the many arguments that have been put to it by numerous bodies about the effects of its proposals.

Mr. McCartney: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Bill is being used as a way of getting round the planning procedures and thus putting aside the whole concept of the EEC directive? That cuts out any possibility of the county


council influencing an impact analysis study or approaching the potential developers of the site with a view to producing such a study jointly. So the Bill is a real attempt to get round any attempt to use the planning regulations — they are supported by the Secretary of State for the Environment—to obtain an in-depth study of the objections to the measure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resist the temptation to broaden the debate into a debate on planning procedures. He must stick to the three amendments.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not the Bill relevant to planning procedures because it supersedes all existing procedures laid down in planning and local government legislation? The whole purpose of this legislation is to give the Bill's private promoters the chance to proceed on matters for which they would otherwise have to obtain planning permission.

Mr. Fatchett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I be helpful to you? Amendment No. 16 refers specifically to environmental questions. I had the opportunity of serving on a planning committee. Anyone who has had experience of planning procedures in local government will realise that environmental factors are crucial to the decisions of planning committees. I say with respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I think that discussion about planning procedures and the time scales involved is relevant to the amendment.
You may have been in the Chair at the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have no doubt that if you were not, you read the proceedings on the Bill, which many feel may become a best-seller like novels by the former vice-chairman of the Conservative party. If you read the proceedings you will see that there was at one stage a long debate about whether the private Bill mechanism was the most appropriate for the company. Some of us argued that it should have gone through the planning procedures. It did not do that because it knew that it could buy influence on the Conservative Benches to get the private Bill through. Amendment Number 16 has been accepted for debate by you and your colleagues, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Therefore, I would have thought that we could talk about planning procedures. Some of us wish in one sense that we could not, because we wish that the private company had gone through the planning procedures rather than buy influence in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Both hon. Gentlemen have answered their own points. They have confirmed my fear that the debate might be broadened into one on whether this is a correct method by which to proceed or whether it should be done through planning procedures. All that I am saying is that to have a broad debate on whether this Bill, or planning procedure, is the right way to proceed would be out of order on these amendments.

Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend was judicious in his choice of words, But he said twice that hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches had been bought. He referred specifically to private promoters buying influence. I should be grateful if you would rule that that is an appropriate form of words for my hon. Friend to use. He is anxious

to avoid an early bath, but if you can rule that it is in order for my hon. Friend to accuse hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches of having been bought, it would help us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear any words to that effect.

Mr. Morley: Amendment No. 16 is very important.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I do not know a great deal about salt marshes or ornithology, but I know that local authorities are under great pressure. I am deeply concerned about whether Suffolk county council and Suffolk Coastal district council will have to go to any expense because of the Bill. I am not sure about the political persuasion of those councils. I am not even sure whether they have been rate-capped. Can anyone state whether the company will pay compensation to those councils for work that they will have to carry out under the Bill?

Mr. Morley: That is a good point and comes back to the reason why the time should be extended from one month to three months.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Members of the county council and of Suffolk Coastal district council have negotiated with the promoters and have reached complete agreement with them.

Mr. Morley: Why has that not been said before?

Mr. John Battle: There is usually an explanatory and financial memorandum attached to Bills that spells out the financial implications of the legislation for local authorities. It is absent in this case. Will the procedures involved in the investigation of deposits of material mean any expense for the local authorities? I beg to differ from my hon. Friend. The company may not have to reimburse the local authority. Instead, the local authority may have to supplement its resources to pay that money, which means that the money comes from the ratepayers. Why does not the local authority receive sufficient funding to cover the work?

Mr. Morley: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds says that there has been agreement between the two councils and the dock and railway board. I wonder whether those councils are reconsidering their position in the light of what happened to councils affected by the recent hurricane in the south of England. Without doubt, they will incur expense because they will have to do such things as clean away the mud on the roads, repair demaged vehicles and inspect damage. That expenditure may lead the councils to incur grant penalty. The Secretary of State for the Environment said that the councils should have had the necessary money in their reserves. What kind of support is that for local councils?

Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend has touched on an important point — the role of local authorities with respect to finance. One hon. Member said from a sedentary position that there would be no increased costs for local authorities.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: No extra costs.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, is saying something slightly different. What extra costs will fall upon the county and district councils to do those things mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for


Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), such as clearing the roads of excess mud? Councils will also face demand for a change in the road system, because of increased traffic, and there will be ancillary costs. We have not had responses to those fundamental points. My hon. Friend has touched on a rich vein. It is important to press the Government on these points.

Mr. Morley: I know of no major civil engineering project that has not resulted in the local authorities incurring extra costs. I know from my experience as a local councillor that in undertaking major engineering projects we have to deal with broken pavements, wires and cables that have been torn down and lamp posts that have been knocked over. Although that damage, which is incidental in any major project, is the responsibility of the private company or contractors concerned, those of us in local government know very well how long it takes to go through the insurance claims, and in the meantime more costs are being incurred.

Mr. Fatchett: I should like to offer my hon. Friend a piece of information which may be relevant to his argument. I had the pleasure of visiting Suffolk only a few days after the storm damage occurred. I talked to a number of local people who had suffered extensive damage to their property. I read in the local newspaper that the local county council was worried about the damage and the cost of the council. It is no good the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) saying that there was an agreement with the county council. The fact is that that agreement predated the storm damage. We all now know that there are county councils in the south of England that will find themselves in extreme difficulty because of the storm damage. It is irrelevant for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to say that there has been an agreement. He is taking the House for a ride. That agreement has been overtaken. Does my hon. Friend agree with me?

Mr. Morley: I absolutely agree with that statement for the reasons I have already put forward. Any reasonable local council would want to consult its local people about the possible effects. Local councils may want to consult any villages that lie along the route for lorries and local conservation organisations. They may want to consult local rambler associations whose rights of way may be affected during the construction period. It is in no way unreasonable that reasonable local authorities should be given that timespan.

4 am

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend dealt first with the capital consequences of the legislation. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) was very coy and avoided mentioning revenue consequences and particularly manpower costs. Local authorities will incur substantial expenditure in that area and there is no possibility of private enterprise coming in to make that revenue good. The type of manpower costs that I am referring to involve environmental health officers, planning officers, engineers and traffic management units. Those manpower costs represent real costs to the local authority and the Bill does not address such costs.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend has raised some good points. He has clearly stated the difficulties in which local councils may find themselves over the time scale and it is not true to say that no costs will fall upon local authorities.

Revenue costs are very important in connection with total capital and without doubt some council departments will be tied up with supervision, the consequences of construction work and with queries from local people who may want to make complaints.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend may be able to assist us and invite the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) to provide the relevant information. My hon. Friend has relatively recent distinguished experience of local government. Indeed, his experience is much more recent than most other hon. Members who had had similar experience of serving in local government before entering this House. From his recent experience, and as he represented a local authority on the eastern side of the country, can he tell us whether any local authority on the eastern side of England today has the spare capacity of highly qualified servants to fulfil the obligations immediately, or at one month's notice, that hon. Members on both sides of the House would expect such an authority to undertake? Does he believe that any local authority, given all the constraints placed on local authorities by the Government in recent years has any capacity to fulfil the demands at the remarkably short notice envisaged in the Bill?

Mr. Morley: Even Ministers are aware that the screws have been tightened so hard on local authorities that, frankly, I do not believe that there is spare capacity among local authorities' work forces to deal with the three-month notice, let alone the one-month notice.

Mr. Battle: I believe that decisions are often taken in favour of the private sector that assume that ratepayers can foot the bill and that the local authority will pay the price. Have there been any assessments or costings, in the light of the Bill, of the impact on local authorities and ratepayers, so as to build such assessments into the budgets when they are drawn up? If that work has not been carried out, the Bill is imposing a burden on local authorities that is greater than the authorities can bear.

Mr. Morley: I am sure that costings have been done, but I am not sure just how recently or whether they have been amended in the light of the changing circumstances of local authorities and the changing costs and inflation rates. Any costings carried out in the past will no longer be relevant to the present circumstances, particularly in view of the comments made by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the way in which he is quite ruthlessly prepared to deal with local authorities which find that they have extra expenditure above the normal outlay. They can expect no help, support or sympathy and they face very severe consequences.

Mr. Ron Davies: I do not wish to usurp your authority, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I wonder whether the terms of the amendment stray slightly wide of the words on the Order Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) referred earlier to the difficulties of migrant birds—hence the amendment calling for a three-month moratorium. Will he cast his mind back to the protective provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and consider for a moment the protection that it bestows on nesting birds, and the effect that the Bill would have on the nesting period? As I understand the terms of the 1981 Act, they would prevent


most of the operations envisaged in the Bill from taking place, certainly between about February and June or July. I feel that that is highly relevant to the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are developing into speeches. Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Morley: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for guiding me back to the straight and narrow. I do not wish to digress from the points that we are discussing.
Under Schedule 1 of the 1981 Act, certain breeding birds are protected by law. Schedule 1 birds are the rarer species, but birds such as the ruff——

Mr. Martlew: Will my hon. Friend please explain what schedule 1 is?

Mr. Morley: Certainly. Schedule I is a list of rare British breeding birds. They include such species as the barn owl, which is becoming very scarce, and other scarce breeders such as the bee-eater — [Interruption.] I am afraid that the ringed plover is not included in the schedule. No doubt that will cause some disappointment.
Schedule 1 protects birds that would be endangered by disturbance of their breeding. Any schedule 1 bird that was breeding in the area would halt any building progress taking place at that time. The ruff and the black-tailed godwit, which are in the schedule, breed in the area, although I do not know whether they breed in that precise vicinity.

Mr. Ron Davies: I gather that the provisions of schedule I are not the only provisions that prohibit the disturbance of breeding birds. As I understand it, any breeding birds, other than those which, under another provision, can be taken from pheasantries and so on, are offered a measure of protection under the 1981 Act. Not only the birds with special protection, but the oyster catchers and others mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) would be given protection.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. Although they are not included in schedule 1, those birds would be protected during the breeding season from the deliberate disturbance or destruction of their nests or eggs. It comes back to the question of the time scale of the construction work. The more common breeding birds in the area might be affected.

Mr. Adam Ingram: I have no knowledge of schedule 1 of the 1981 Act. However, I have been told that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) is a renowned bird expert. Are any of the birds mentioned in schedule 1 migratory? I have not taken part in the earlier proceedings because I have been tied up with the Local Government Bill, so I am now trying to pick up some of the necessary information. [Interruption.] I am an expert on the haggis, but not on migratory birds. Will my hon. Friend tell me whether any, or all, of the birds in schedule I are migratory?

Mr. Morley: Schedule 1 contains a combination of both types of bird. Birds such as the barn owl, for instance, do not migrate: they have their own territory. Other birds, such as the Tringa sandpipers, which breed in this country, are migratory. They are linked by the delicate nature of their distribution, both in this country and in Europe. That is why they are given special protection, apart from the protection that they are given under the 1981 Act.

Mr. Ingram: Schedule 1 dealt with migratory birds south of the border. Do any of those birds fly down from Scotland?

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend has asked an interesting question. Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act refers to the wryneck, which breeds in the south of England. But it is becoming extinct. However, the northern species of the wryneck, from Scandinavia, is increasing in the north of the British Isles and is moving south. That shows how the hardier northern species are pushing out the weaker southern species.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That may be very interesting, but I find it difficult to relate it to the amendments before the House. The hon. Gentleman must resist the temptation to be taken off the straight and narrow course by the interventions of his hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram).

Mr. Ingram: I raised that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) mentioned certain matters that cause me concern. If the wryneck is flying down from Scotland but will be unable to rest on this site, where will it be able to rest, and will it ever be able to return to Scotland?

Mr. Morley: The wryneck is a summer migrant. It spends the winter months in Africa and other southern regions. The southern wryneck is a special British subspecies that is becoming extinct. It is being replaced by the hardier northern sub-species of the wryneck.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not the relevance of this question the relationship between the environment, nesting and the engineering works? We are trying to work out the extent to which the engineering works would affect the nesting places of these birds. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) referred to the nesting sites of schedule 1 birds and other birds. Do the nesting periods vary throughout the year? A different species of bird could be nesting in each month of the year. If we are to comply with the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the requirement that schedule 1 and other birds should not be disturbed during the nesting season, it is possible that no engineering works could be carried out at any time in the year. My hon. Friend has a duty to identify each species of bird that might be nesting at a particular time of the year.

Mr. Morley: One bird breeds almost continuously during the year — the collared dove. Until 1955 the collared dove was rarely found in this country. It can breed throughout the year, except when the weather is severe.

Mr. Ron Davies: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the collared dove is now classed as a pest and that it can be culled by any landowner or individual, provided that that individual has the landowner's permission to do so?

Mr. Morley: I can confirm that. Collared doves hang around docklands because they are attracted by grain on ships. When they first came to Britain in 1955 people came from all over the country to see them, but they are now regarded as a pest, as a result of their continuous westward spread.

Mr. Hardy: I hope that my hon. Friend will not be led astray by other hon. Friends. I urge him to resist the


blandishments of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend knows that while the House may be interested in collared doves and wrynecks, the particular importance of this area is the provision of habitat to accommodate the wintering population of gulls, ducks, geese and waders. We must not lose sight of that overriding consideration.

Mr. Morley: I accept my hon. Friend's point.
Amendment No. 16 deals with the disturbance that engineering causes. Apart from the construction of the dock, which we have dealt with in terms of civil engineering, there is ancillary construction such as cranes and floodlights. Modern docks are brightly lit at night and floodlights can alter the life patterns of birds on the mud flats. Research has been done on the disturbance of docklands and industrial sites. It has been discovered that because of brightly lit dockland areas, gulls that normally roost at night on reservoirs or inland pools tend to fly around all night because of the opportunity that is given to them by the very bright lights. It is not known what the long-term implications of that interference will be, but a great deal more research will be done on that matter.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman very carefully and with a great deal of sympathy. With regard to amendment No. 16, where he is seeking to insert the word "environmental" alongside "engineering", I think that he has made his case. I have recommended that the promoters accept it, and I am glad to tell the House that they do. If he wishes, that amendment can pass. As to amendment No. 15, the hon. Gentleman properly said that under the wildlife and countryside conventions three months' notice is the normal practice rather than one month, so I have recommended that the promoters accept the logic of his case. I am glad to say that they do, so that amendment can also pass.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) outrageously out of order in suggesting to the House that he has arrived at a private arrangement with the people who are paying him to pilot this legislation through the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw".] I seem to have hit a sore spot. If Tory Members are not prepared to accept the accusation that they have received a financial inducement to support this measure, I am sorry. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has no locus to suggest that he has arrived at a private arrangement with the promoters and that, therefore, there is no need for us to discuss the amendment or for my hon. Friend to proceed with it. It really is outrageous that——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point. The fact is quite simple. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) is in charge of the Bill. It is quite customary for an hon. Member who is in charge of a Bill to give some idea—quite often at an early stage — of his view of amendments that are being discussed. The hon. Gentleman was quite in order in doing that.

Mr. Fatchett: Further to that point of order,Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must continue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Fatchett.

Mr. Ron Davies: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if my hon. Friend had not started to move his amendment or if the debate on the amendment had been completed, that would have been an appropriate time for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to announce to the House his fixed agreement with the promoters of the Bill. Inasmuch as the debate on the amendment has hardly started—certainly, the amendment has been moved by my hon. Friend — many important points are to be made. Some of my hon. Friends wish to oppose the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Glandford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Surely it is not an appropriate time for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to announce his fixed-up agreement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I merely repeat that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was within his rights in doing what he did. I got the impression that he was trying to be helpful to the House. It is quite normal for the person in charge of a Bill — whether it be a Back-Bench Member or a Minister—at an early stage to give some idea to the House about his attitude to amendments that are being discussed.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I confirm absolutely that I was seeking to meet the case that the hon. Member for Glan ford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) eloquently put. Of course, since I am responsible for the Bill in the House, I made it my business to consult the promoters and to advise them that the hon. Gentleman had made two points about the timing and the insertion of "environmental" which made good sense and that, if they were wise, they would adopt the amendments. I was reporting to the House to help the House. The promoters had accepted the two amendments.

Mr. Fatchett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about the procedural aspects. However, perhaps I do not need to be, and you can help me in this respect. I have listened to the debate for the past hour. I am keen to speak against amendment No. 15. In many respects, it is flawed. I should like to catch your eye, if possible. I am concerned that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) is trying to railroad the amendment through the House and prevent detailed discussion. Some of my hon. Friends — indeed, some Conservative Members—and I should have the right to speak against the amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's intervention and his subsequent point of order were not taken by you in any sense as trying to preempt discussion.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Lloyd: It is a different point.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the end of the debate, will you accept a motion that the House do now adjourn? It seems that an odd situation has developed. Clearly, the House has been detained at some length. It would have been helpful if, at some time over the past 18 months during which the amendments have been down, the promoters of the Bill had had the chance to consult the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) to consider which of the amendments they might be prepared to accept. Had they put their names to some of the amendments, the time spent


by the House could have been considerably reduced. It is not satisfactory for that consultation to take place during the debate as the time of the House is clearly being wasted. I hope that at the end of the debate on this group of amendments you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might consider allowing the House to adjourn. We could then return to the matter when the promoters and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds have had an opportunity to sort out their views on the Bill. We might then save some time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat to the House that I have heard nothing out of order and we should now get on with the debate.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I put it to you that there are a number of oddities about the confession of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). I may be wrong—I stand to be corrected — but I have not seen the hon. Gentleman move from his place to consult the promoters. If I am right, the House deserves an explanation. We have had nearly an hour of debate—during which time my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has advanced the environmental case most eloquently—and it would have been wrong for us to be detained if the information could have been provided earlier.
You, Sir, pointed out that in the consideration of public business a Minister may explain his intentions to the House early in the proceedings. However, in such cases Ministers are backed by the authority of the Government Chief Whip and know that he will mobilise the support of Conservative Members to guarantee that their intentions are translated into votes in the Lobby. Unless the Government Chief Whip is prepared to make a statement on this matter, which would be most useful, and to assure us that Conservative Members will not vote against the amendment, we can have no guarantee—other than the assurance that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds proposes to vote for it — that the amendment will be carried. Therefore, if the House is not to adjourn, it is most important that the Government Chief Whip should tell us what the Government propose.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I repeat that I have heard nothing out of order. The Chair never deals with hypothetical situations and I certainly do not propose to do so now.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is significant that in making his concession the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) failed to recognise until this evening that the Bill was the subject of negotiations with the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me? The hon. Gentleman appears to be addressing his remarks to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. If he has a point of order, he must address it to me.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I sought to outline the nature of the debate that is now to take place in light of the concession made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. Hitherto, the debate has been about a Bill whose provisions have been negotiated by the Government and its promoters. Ministers — certainly Ministers from the Department of the Environment—will have negotiated over the Bill and accepted many of its

clauses in principle. However, the hon. Gentleman's concession on behalf of the promoters will not have been discussed with Ministers, and they may wish to comment on it. They may wish to qualify——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not really a point of order at all. It would be perfectly in order to raise the matter in the debate, and I suggest that we now return to the debate.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) accused the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) of receiving payment I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was indignant. In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, would you give him an opportunity to put on record a denial that he has received any payment for his role in relation to the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now return to the debate.

Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) mentioned me in his point of order. I realise that inadvertently I may have given offence to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). If that was the case. I withdraw my remarks unreservedly. II the hon. Gentleman will assure me and the House that he has received no payment whatsoever in connection with his promotion of the Bill. I will acknowledge that I have done him a grave disservice and withdraw my remarks. I look forward to the statement from the hon. Gentleman that that is the case.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I do not intend to make any such statement.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the points that hon. Members are now making are not points of order for the Chair.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I hope that what was said by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) was recorded in Hansard.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds a fair and reasonable opportunity——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made it clear that these points are not matters for the Chair. I deprecate the fact that hon. Members are persisting in trying to raise points when I have already ruled that they are not points of order. We must now get on with the debate.

Mr. Morley: I remind the House that the issues we are talking about are serious in terms of the environment and conservation of the area concerned. It has been said that the promoters of the Bill are willing to accept amendments Nos. 15 and 16. I congratulate them on listening to the arguments that have been put forward sincerely. I appreciate that. However, one or two issues concern me a little and I would like to clarify them.
First, I am a little puzzled at the fact that the amendments have been accepted at this late stage when, as I understand it, they have been on the table for a long time. I am a little concerned——

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The term of one month was an agreement reached between Suffolk county council and Suffolk Coastal district council and the promoters of the Bill. The local authorities were satisfied with one month. However, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has made a fair point that, in wildlife and conservation practice, it is normal for there to be three months. He made his case, it has been accepted and I hope that he will recognise that.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an amazing situation? The amendments have been tabled for nearly 12 months. One would have thought that during that time the promoters would have looked at the reasons for the amendments. They could even have come and asked some of us who have our names on the amendments what the reasons were. We could then have tabled the amendments in the names of the promoters as well as those of Labour Members. That would have saved the House a great deal of time. It is unsatisfactory that only at this late hour are the promoters starting to decide to make the change. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) will press on to find out what other concessions may be coming so that we may be able to make faster progress — [Interruption.]

Mr. Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. From a sedentary position the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, having explained to the house that he has been convinced by the eloquent rhetoric of my hon. Friend, has now threatened to vote against the amendments. Clearly that conversion is humbug——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are not points of order. They are legitimate points of argument that can be deployed in the debate.

Mr. Morley: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that it is strange. I understand the logic of taking on board the three-month period because the case for the amendments is logical. I am prepared to accept the offer for three months. However, on amendment No. 16, I would like to be sure that we mean the same thing in terms of its operation if we put the word environmental into the Bill. By putting that word as well as the words "engineering factors" in the amendment, we shall put a responsibility on the company. If environmental or conservation groups point out to the company that the construction of the dock is having an undesirable environmental consequence, the company will vary the construction. I would appreciate it if the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) would confirm that.

Mr. Ingram: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could we have some order in the Chamber? An hon. Member is walking around the Chamber. I do not know whether he is trying to interject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must be seated unless they are addressing the House.

Mr. Morley: I should appreciate it if the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds would confirm that we are both on the same wavelength on the effect on the clause of the word "environmental". As I see the effect of the amendment, if the company's construction is disturbing wildlife, or the

nature or design of whatever is being constructed has any detrimental effect upon the environment, the company would concede that point.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Clause 7(3), to which amendment No. 16 is addressed, exempts the dock company from giving notice to the two councils of an intended start of construction of the extended quay, or any part of it. It gives the company an exemption in any case where it does not foresee that the construction work is capable of being completed in one continuous operation. At the moment the company must make that judgment on economic and engineering factors only. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) is right to want to insert "environmental". The promoters accept it, so the clause will be amended precisely on the words of the amendment.

Mr. Morley: We are making some progress, but I want to be clear on the interpretation because I do not want to see the amendment rendered worthless by the interpretation of the company, or to see the company ignore an amendment that has been put in good faith by hon. Members.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) did not agree with the proposition put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). The hon. Gentleman only reiterated the original concession made and referred to the inclusion of "environmental" after "engineering". My hon. Friend should press for that undertaking, because it was conspicuous that he did not receive it. The intention of my hon. Friend's amendment is very different from the interpretation being placed upon it by the company and by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. I ask my hon. Friend to press this 'very important point of interpretation.

Mr. Morley: That is my point. I am trying to make clear how the clause will operate, so that there is no danger of misinterpretation by the company.

Mr. Hardy: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) for accepting amendment Nos. 15 and 16. They are modest concessions which he may be unable to make in relation to other clauses, but we appreciate them none the less. We are also grateful for his concession on the previous set of amendments.
The hon. Gentleman could be even more helpful and could maintain consistency by accepting amendment No. 17, too. I hope that the inadequate gratitude of some of my hon. Friends has not persuaded the hon. Gentleman not to help us with amendment No. 17. On behalf of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, I express the sincere hope — perhaps the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) will allow the hon. Gentleman to listen to my request — that he will accept that amendment No. 17 is also important.
My only comment about the two amendments that have been accepted is that I am astonished that Suffolk county council and Suffolk Coastal district council have such enormous resources that they could respond to the requirements and challenges of the Bill at one month's notice. My local authority has studiously avoided being rate-capped and has tried to comply with the Government's requirements, but I do not see how or any responsible authority, could have enough spare resources so that, at one month's notice, it could respond


to those challenges. The ratepayers of that area should ask why the authorities have maintained that substantial spare capacity in the administration of several departments.
I am sorry that I had to say that, because I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. Some of my hon. Friends have not perceived that the hon. Gentleman is trying to oblige several of his right hon. and hon. Friends who, because of ministerial office, could not sponsor the Bill. He is carrying a heavy load. It might be better for him — it would certainly be better for the country — if those hon. Members who represent the constituencies that will be most affected by the project ceased to be Ministers. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is now on the Front Bench, has a much closer constituency interest in the project than does the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. The right hon. Gentleman should have been persuaded to depart from the Government so that he could have spared the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds from carrying that heavy burden. We have sympathy for the hon. Gentleman, as well as considerable appreciation of the substantial efforts that he has made.
While the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has made concessions on amendments Nos. 15 and 16, he has not done the same on No. 17.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Nobody has yet spoken to amendment No. 17.

Mr. Hardy: I shall speak to it now, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will provide us with a hat trick by accepting it because the arguments in favour of No. 17 are even more telling than those in favour of Nos. 15 and 16.
No. 17 would delete subsection (4). That provision, if not deleted, would relax completely the safeguards about deposited material arising from work authorised in connection with producing a smooth shore line or rounding off sharp angles on the north-easterly point of the shore line and terminating the construction work.
Why should those restrictions be relaxed? Are they not minimal enough? And why does a smooth shore line have to be produced? Does the company believe that a smooth shore line would be more aesthetically pleasing or that the waders would find it more difficult to navigate? We need evidence as to the desirability of a smooth shore line. Subsection (4) seems almost to provide the company with a charter to avoid some of the more praiseworthy, or less reprehensible, aspects of the clause.

Mr. Steinberg: As my constituency does not have a shore line, may I ask my hon. Friend to explain what a smooth shore line is? My geography is not good, having been a history teacher before becoming a politician, and I would be obliged if my hon. Friend would explain precisely what such a shore line entails.

Mr. Hardy: A smooth shore line is very different from, indeed the opposite of, a rough shore line. I too was once a history teacher.

Mr. Steinberg: My constituency does not have a rough shore line either, so perhaps my hon. Friend would explain what a rough one is.

Mr. Hardy: The company is obviously keen to have a shore line with no sudden gradations, no sharp edges, no

precipitous slopes and one that is even and smooth in the distribution of whatever material of which the shore line is composed.

Mrs. Fyfe: Why is a smooth shore line preferable to a rough one? I would have thought that in terms of natural beauty and enhancement of the general appearance, a rough shore line would be nicer.

Mr. Hardy: We should assess what sort of shore line is most conducive to retain, effectively, the highest proportion of the important species of wildfowl that currently occupy the area. Those species command our attention and are the reason for our presence here at this absurd hour.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: A smooth shore line may mean something quite different. We presume that a smooth shore line would include material that would be environmentally acceptable. However, the formulation of that shore line may include the use of materials not environmentally acceptable—for example, sewage. The constructors may wish to raise a sewage deposit that was concentrated in a particular part of the estuary and place it on the shore line, which would cause substantial environmental damage. Other materials, such as mud, may be used. For example, the existing shore line may be sandy and mud may be deposited to aid the engineering works dealt with in other amendments.

Mr. Hardy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he leads me on to the point that I wish to make. The House may recall that some time ago, there was concern about the deposit of harmful materials on land. I recall discussion of the matter in the House. That issue illustrated the dangers that can accrue from the deposit of harmful materials.
The Yorkshire water authority—some time ago, but the case is still relevant — deposited sewage sludge on Warren House farm, in my constituency. It was a perfectly sensible proposition because such sludge is a valuable material for fertiliser. Unfortunately, the herd of shorthorn cows on the farm started to die, first the bull followed by quite a few calves and heifers and most of the milking cows. Everyone assumed that the deaths were caused by atmospheric pollution, but the farmer, Mr Ellis, a friend and an experienced farmer, said to me that he did not believe that that was the cause. Despite the visits of many experts, he said to me, "Peter, I think it is the muck that I put on the land." I therefore asked the local authority to analyse sewage sludge and we established that it contained high and harmful levels of fluoride salts.
I do not criticise the Yorkshire water authority and I am in no way suggesting that it was guilty of complacency or corruption. It made a genuine mistake ; but it was a mistake that poisoned 40 beasts. If compensation had not been secured for Mr. Ellis, it would have meant the ruin of one deserving farmer.
Such things can happen and therefore I am entitled to express some anxiety about proper controls for the materials that will be used in the infilling envisaged in the project. For that reason I believe that it is essential to look carefully at clause 7 to ensure that there is no opportunity, provided by the existence of lines 27 to 36, for weakness to emerge.

Mr. Battle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the clause seeems rather more concerned about the angles on the beach rather than the environmental impact with its reference to a smooth shoreline and a
beach of suitable dimensions to round off any sharp angle?
Does my hon. Friend accept that any deposit from any construction work undertaken should be monitored? If the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has already accepted that environmental amendment, surely it is meaningless for him not to accept the amendment that will remove clause 7(4).
Is it environmental issues that concern us and not angles on the beach? Is my hon. Friend interested in pressing the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to make clear whether he is prepared to accept the amendment or whether he is prepared to lead the House on an all-night ramble simply because he will not make clear his views?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Its purpose is simply to round out the end of the quay, otherwise it would be square and would create all sorts of eddies that would not be good for small dinghy sailors. So that hon. Members are under no misapprehension, if the House insists that the amendment he carried so be it. I have discussed that with the promoters and that is acceptable to them, but I must warn hon. Members that it would have some consequences for navigation that are not what the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is seeking to achieve.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to be helpful, I am sure. The consequence of maintaining this part of clause 7 in the Bill is that the company would not have to notify the Suffolk county council or the Suffolk district council in advance of depositing material in three special sets of circumstances. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West and myself are not seeking to promote a navigation hazard. We are seeking to ensure that the local authority has adequate information and is notified in good time. The hon. Gentleman accepted that principle when he accepted the extension of the notice from one month to three months. I should have thought that this clause was entirely relevant and consistent with that concession, for which we are grateful.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am seeking to be helpful to the House, as indeed the promoters are seeking to be helpful to those who navigate in the river. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the environmental consequences, but I think that he accepts that the previous concession that I made in respect of amendment No. 16, plus the earlier agreement that no reclamation would commence without the consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has a whole series of statutory duties placed upon him, cover the environmental matter effectively. I can only look at the amendment as it is drawn and as it would alter the Bill. It would alter it in precisely the fashion that I have suggested. It would remove from the promoters the obligation or intention to round out the end of the quay in a fashion that would be helpful to small boat navigation. If the House wishes to bring that about, it is quite acceptable to the company because, if anything, it will reduce its costs. However, I do not believe any responsible company ought to accept the amendment without advising the House of the consequences that could flow from it.

Mr. Battle: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is getting close to becoming an intervention within an intervention. I think that the hon. Member should be allowed to answer points one at a time.

Mr. Hardy: I shall ask the hon. Gentleman to comment on the points that I am about to make. It is suggested that, if this paragraph remains in the Bill, the company could use it at some future date to justify an operation that would be damaging to the public interest or harmful to the environmental cause.
5 am
Secondly, subsection (4)(b) exempts the company from notifying the local authorities if material is to be deposited so as to
minimise any interference with the ebb and flow of the waters adjacent to … the Company's berths.
The RSPB suggests that that might be paradoxical. Surely the whole object of the Bill is to allow the company to commit substantial — even gross — acts of interference with the ebb and flow of waters in the Orwell estuary. Further deposits of materials under such an exemption would have implications for the conservation of birds elsewhere in the estuary because of the chain effect.
I am also advised that it is disquieting to learn that the company may require extra latitude of the same type. Surely if the quay and its berths are adequately designed and maintained, nothing could happen to justify deposits of material to minimise interference with the ebb and flow of the tide.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: One aspect of this issue has not yet surfaced. It is connected with the statement that my hon. Friend has just made about the ebb and flow of the tide and the movement of material.
I have a map of the area involved. We have not yet considered the fact that if excavations take place on Fagbury point it is likely that there will be a shift of material down the whole estuary, creating soil erosion along the coast, from Ipswich right down through the villages south of Levington, past Stratton Hall near Thorpe common, and even on to Trimley marshes. There could be further erosion on Shotley marshes to the north of Harwich, right around the coast to Cranes Hill and on to Chelmondiston. All those areas could suffer from erosion in the event that any excavation work was done on the Fagbury——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members must make their interventions briefer.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend has assumed—at some length — the point I was making about the knock-on effects further into the estuary. Subsection (4)(c) raises queries similar to those I have already expressed. Why should the company want to construct a beach to round off a sharp angle at the point at which work on Trinity quay terminated? Is there a chance that it did not design the works correctly in the first place? If so, can the company be trusted to apply proper design standards in future construction work? Does subsection (4)(c)(ii)—it refers to
any part of the work"—
apply the exemption to the construction of the new berths for which authorisation is sought in the Bill?

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has put his finger on the point that there could be serious consequences for


much of the shore line; and we have no evidence about what is likely to happen. I hope that either the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) or one of his hon. Friends with expert knowledge will tell us whether any survey has been carried out.
It would be useful to know how much we can rely on subsection (4)(b). What does "minimise" mean? It could be a completely free hand for the company which might say, "We have tried; we have minimised it but it did not work." Does it mean something specific? I am unhappy about this and I may have to speak about it later in the debate. Can my hon. Friend help the House on the matter?

Mr. Hardy: I think the only person who can help the House is the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). I am sure that he will seek to satisfy the House later in the debate.
As I explained earlier when my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and I were discussing our previous careers, I have limited technological, hydrological and engineering qualifications. I would not dream of seeking to give the House the impression that I could speak authoritatively about technological and engineering matters. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will appreciate that your engineering skills far exceed those of most of us at present in the House. I maintain a close interest in conservation. It is perhaps because I am not an engineer that I remind the House of what can happen when experts prevail.
I said earlier that I would speak about the oyster catcher, and I shall do so briefly and relevantly. The oyster catcher provides an excellent example of leaving everything to the technologist, the expert. During the winter of 1963–64 there was a massive spatfall — an interesting word—of cockles on the Bury inlet which led to excellent yields. Oyster catcher numbers increased. The fishermen demanded a cull of the oyster catchers so as to return the population of that species to its earlier level. With the approval of the experts, 10,000 oyster catchers were shot. After that cull, the cockle population, which was supposed to have been protected by the cull, plummeted. No one knows the reason, but when the experts analysed the situation again they concluded that the oyster catchers had had far less impact upon the cockle population than had been suggested. So 10,000 oyster catchers had been shot almost certainly unnecessarily. That is one example of the effect of unquestioned acceptance of expert advice. That, not technological qualifications, is the reason for my suspicion.

Mr. Battle: The Bill is primary legislation. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) accepts that the impact on the environment should be a primary consideration, as he had said on earlier amendments, and if he is prepared to accept that the company should give notice, then, if subsection (4) remains, there is a contradiction in the legislation because the key phrase is
Nothing in this section shall apply.
It would mean that the company would not need to give notice and would not need to take account of the environment. For that reason, it is illogical for the subsection to remain in the primary legislation.

Mr. Hardy: I have some sympathy with that view. Clearly it would have been better if we had known well in

advance that amendments Nos. 15 and 16 were to be accepted while amendment No. 17 was not. Obviously, it would have been better if we had been able to consider the clause in the light of the generous concession made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). We have put some serious points and serious grounds for hesitation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can allay our anxieties. The only way of doing so with any positive certainty would be to accept amendment No. 17 with the other two amendments.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). I have given the warning that I thought was proper on behalf of a responsible company. Nevertheless, in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I have suggested to the promoters that they accept amendment No. 17, and they have agreed to do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Sir Anthony Grant: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had only an hour and 40 minutes debate on these matters and some of my hon. Friends are waiting to speak. Why has the debate been terminated in this way? Is this not unprecedented?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I heard the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) say that he was prepared to accept the amendment. In those circumstances, it seemed perfectly reasonable to allow the House to make a decision on the amendment.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: (seated and covered): Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You responded to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) by saying that your reason for accepting the closure motion lay in the promoters' decision to accept the amendment. But saying that the promoters accept the amendment is not the same as saying that the House accepts it. To ensure that there was proper and adequate debate on all the outstanding issues, it was important that those of my hon. Friend's who had already intimated that they intended to oppose the amendments had the opportunity to put forward their case.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The reason that I gave to the House was only one of several that enabled me to reach the view that the House should be given the opportunity to reach its decision. I must point out that the debate had been going on for nearly two hours.

Mr. Fatchett: (seated and covered): Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although you were not in the Chair, you will appreciate from the record that, earlier, on a previous amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker recognised that some hon. Members wanted to speak against it. Although you may be right about the length of the debate there is an argument that we should have balanced debate in the House. All the speeches in the debate on these amendments have been in favour of them, and there has not been a speech against them. I wanted


specifically, and I gave notice of my intention, to speak against amendment No. 15, not for frivolous reasons but because I felt that the amendment did not go far enough.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the House feels that the debate should continue, the House will reflect that view in the vote which is taking place now.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: (seated and covered): Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it fair to those hon. Members who may without your knowledge have wished to oppose these amendments for you to——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to take into account a number of factors when deciding whether I will accept a closure motion. I have exercised the discretion vested in me by the House. It will be for the House in the Division that is taking place to reflect its own view of these matters.

Mr. McCartney: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier I specifically went to see Mr. Deputy Speaker, who was in the Chair at the time, and I was given an assurance that those who opposed the clause would be called during the debate. During the change in the occupancy of the Chair, that information was not transmitted to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friends and I have been debarred from participating in the debate after being given an assurance that we could take part.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a matter for the House to decide. I have not debarred any hon. Member from taking part in the debate. I have allowed the House to reach a conclusion on the matter under consideration.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: ( seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that you have not debarred the House from reaching a decision or debarred any hon. Member for speaking. On the basis——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have not reached my point of order yet.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman had gone sufficiently far for me to reach a view about the matter on which he was addressing the House. He is getting dangerously close to challenging my ruling, and he must not do that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is not a question of challenging your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On a point of order, I put it to you that some hon. Members tonight have been prevented from opposing amendments to which they were opposed and they will reflect that in the Division Lobby. On the basis of your statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker there will be no need for any debate on any of the amendments. The House would simply have to decide the moment that the amendment is moved whether a closure should take place. That would be unprecedented. The debate has been——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate my ruling in this fashion. I have told him that these are matters for my judgment and discretion. I have exercised my discretion, and it will be for the House, in the Division that is taking place now, to make a decision on whether the debate should continue. The hon. Gentleman should not seek to debate my ruling in this fashion.

The House having divided: Ayes 124, Noes 20.

Division No. 56]
[5.10 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Knapman, Roger


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Ashby, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Atkinson, David
Lightbown, David


Baldry, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bellingham, Henry
Lord, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Bevan, David Gilroy
MacGregor, John


Bottomley, Peter
Maclean, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Mans, Keith


Brazier, Julian
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Browne, John (Winchester)
Miller, Hal


Burns, Simon
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Burt, Alistair
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Butler, Chris
Moate, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Carrington, Matthew
Moss, Malcolm


Colvin, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Cran, James
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Paice, James


Curry, David
Patnick, Irvine


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Day, Stephen
Portillo, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Redwood, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Durant, Tony
Riddick, Graham


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Fallon, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Farr, Sir John
Ryder, Richard


Favell, Tony
Sayeed, Jonathan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Scott, Nicholas


Forth, Eric
Shaw, David (Dover)


Franks, Cecil
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


French, Douglas
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Gale, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gardiner, George
Stanbrook, Ivor


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stern, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Stevens, Lewis


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Gow, Ian
Summerson, Hugo


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Thornton, Malcolm


Hampson, Dr Keith
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Tracey, Richard


Harris, David
Tredinnick, David


Hayes, Jerry
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hayward, Robert
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Wheeler, John


Hind, Kenneth
Whitney, Ray


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Wiggin, Jerry


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Wilshire, David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Wood, Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Yeo, Tim


Irvine, Michael



Janman, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jessel, Toby
Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; Ft'dish)
Loyden, Eddie


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McCartney, Ian


Clay, Bob
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dalyell, Tarn
Marek, Dr John


Fatchett, Derek
Martlew, Eric


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Meale, Alan


Hardy, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Morley, Elliott






Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Steinberg, Gerald
Mr. Ron Davies and Mr. John Battle.

Question accordingly agreed

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 5.

Division No. 57]
[5.25 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Irvine, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Janman, Timothy


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Jessel, Toby


Ashby, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Atkinson, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Baldry, Tony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bellingham, Henry
Knapman, Roger


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bevan, David Gilroy
Lightbown, David


Bottomley, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brazier, Julian
Lord, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Loyden, Eddie


Browne, John (Winchester)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Burns, Simon
MacGregor, John


Burt, Alistair
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Butler, Chris
Maclean, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Carrington, Matthew
Mans, Keith


Clay, Bob
Marek, Dr John


Colvin, Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Meale, Alan


Cran, James
Miller, Hal


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Curry, David
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Dalyell, Tam
Moate, Roger


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Morley, Elliott


Day, Stephen
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Devlin, Tim
Moss, Malcolm


Dorrell, Stephen
Neubert, Michael


Durant, Tony
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Emery, Sir Peter
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hati'd)
Paice, James


Fallon, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Farr, Sir John
Porter, David (Waveney)


Favell, Tony
Portillo, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Redwood, John


Forth, Eric
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Franks, Cecil
Riddick, Graham


French, Douglas
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Gale, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Gardiner, George
Ryder, Richard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Scott, Nicholas


Gill, Christopher
Shaw, David (Dover)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Gow, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Stern, Michael


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Stevens, Lewis


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Summerson, Hugo


Hardy, Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Harris, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hayes, Jerry
Thornton, Malcolm


Hayward, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Hind, Kenneth
Tracey, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Tredinnick, David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Wheeler, John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Whitney, Ray





Widdecombe, Miss Ann



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. Eric Martlew and Mr. Gerry Steinberg.


Wood, Timothy



Yeo, Tim





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)



Battle, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Mr. Ian McCartney and Mr. Derek Fatchett.


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)



Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 16, in page 6, line 26, after 'engineering', insert 'and environmental.'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): (seated and covered) On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is quite obvious that something is going on in the Lobby, or something is not going on in the Lobby, in that various hon. Members are delaying the procedures of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is obvious that there is some apparently inexplicable delay. Serjeant at Arms, please find out what is going on in the Lobby. The Tellers are here.

The House having divided: Ayes 22, Noes 124.

Division No. 581
[5.40 am


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Loyden, Eddie


Battle, John
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Marek, Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Martlew, Eric


Clay, Bob
Meale, Alan


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dalyell, Tarn
Morley, Elliott


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Steinberg, Gerald


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')



Hardy, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Mr. Derek Fatchett and Mr. Ian McCartney.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Emery, Sir Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Ashby, David
Fallon, Michael


Atkinson, David
Farr, Sir John


Baldry, Tony
Favell, Tony


Bellingham, Henry
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Franks, Cecil


Bevan, David Gilroy
French, Douglas


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, George


Brooke, Hon Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gill, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Burt, Alistair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butler, Chris
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Colvin, Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Cran, James
Hampson, Dr Keith


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hanley, Jeremy


Curry, David
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Davies, Q. (Stamfd &amp; Spald'g)
Harris, David


Day, Stephen
Hayes, Jerry


Devlin, Tim
Hayward, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael






Hind, Kenneth
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, Alan (Strafd-on-A)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Rowe, Andrew


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Ryder, Richard


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Scott, Nicholas


Irvine, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Janman, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jessel, Toby
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knapman, Roger
Stern, Michael


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stevens, Lewis


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lightbown, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Summerson, Hugo


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


MacGregor, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maclean, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Mans, Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Miller, Hal
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Moate, Roger
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wheeler, John


Moss, Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Neubert, Michael
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wiggin, Jerry


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Wilshire, David


Paice, James
Wood, Timothy


Patnick, Irvine
Yeo, Tim


Porter, David (Waveney)



Portillo, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Redwood, John
Mr. Eric Forth and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for your guidance on an important matter that arises directly from the Division. You were here for the debate on the previous set of amendments. You will recall the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) saying that he was in charge of the Bill and that he would accept the amendment on behalf of its promoters—[Interruption.] I should be happy to debate the point at length, but you will wish to rule on the matter quickly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was it in order for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to arrange for Conservative Members to go into the No Lobby to ensure that the amendment which he had accepted on behalf of the promoters would be defeated? I was under the impression that it was the responsibility of each hon. Member to ensure that his vote accorded with his voice.
My second point relates to a graver matter. I had a pleasant exchange of words with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, as you can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Aye Lobby. Since 7 o'clock yesterday evening, we have been led to believe that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was in charge of the Bill. In that capacity, he advised the House on what the promoters will and will not accept. Understandably, my hon. Friends and I accepted the hon. Gentleman at face value. You can imagine my consternation—not to say the horror of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) — when the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds made a frank admission that he was not in charge of the Bill. He said that it was the responsibility of the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). His words were, "It's Gummer's Bill."
Is it in order for a Minister to be discreetly in charge, or in charge by means of subterfuge, of what is ostensibly a private Bill being promoted by outside interests? Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds deliberately to mislead the House by saying that he was in charge——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker has frequently made it clear that he will not accept the charge that an hon. Member has deliberately misled the House. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman may wish to withdraw the word "deliberately".

Mr. Davies: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I implied that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds deliberately misled the House, I withdraw it. But will you advise the House whether it was in order for the hon. Gentleman, knowing full well that he was not in charge of the Bill—as he admitted to me in the hearing of many of my hon. Friends—to say that he was in charge of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: None of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred suggests that there has been any breach either of Standing Orders or our practices and procedures. The question of a Member's vote following his voice would arise only if, when the Chair put the Question, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) had called in a manner contrary to that which he subsequently voted. I understand that that is not what is being charged.

6 am

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Nevertheless, Mr. Deputy Speaker, an interesting point of order arises for you in a twofold sense. The first is whether you were led to believe that events would work out in a way that they subsequently did not work out. You may wish to comment on that matter.
The second question which arises for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that of a vote following an hon. Member's voice. It is obvious that the voice of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the Minister of State, went in a different direction from the way in which he voted because the two Members in question were in different Division Lobbies.

Mr. Skinner: I deliberately went into the No Lobby because I had an idea that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) had been kidding the House. Without going into the question whether he was deliberately misleading us, I must say that he seemed to be making wild promises based on the function at St. James's that was finally cancelled last night. Since then there has also been a change——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will let me know what point of order he thinks arises For me.

Mr. Skinner: Several more hours of debate are still to come and it is just conceivable that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will tell the Chair what he intends to do in the future, and then the Chair will be dragged into the issue in that the Chair will think that he intends to do things that he will not do because his right hon. Friend the Minister of State will not allow him to do them. That is likely to place the Chair in some difficulty.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must wait to see whether such problems arise and then judge them. The Chair cannot rule on a hypothesis.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that when the Question was put on the closure motion a number of points of order were raised by my hon. Friends, in reply to which you pointed out that the debate had lasted for an hour and 40 minutes and you saw no reason for it to continue, considering that the amendments had been accepted. It now seems clear that they had not been accepted, and that one of those acceptances has certainly been reneged on.
My point of order falls into two parts. The first is whether what took place on that amendment can stand as valid, and the second is to ask what action the Chair may take on another group of amendments——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, the hon. Gentleman is asking me to anticipate problems that may not arise.

Several Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One point of order at a time. On the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, he is really asking me to have a discussion with him about a decision that has already been taken. I cannot do that either.

Mr. Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a different, serious point of order, and if I am allowed to develop it, you will recognise its significance.
The last Division created some sort of precedent and I am seeking your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on this matter. This is the first time in my recollection when every speaker from the Labour Benches and, as far as I can recall——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman get to his point of order.

Mr. Hardy: I believe that an important precedent has been created. What is the effect on the conduct of the proceedings and the business of the House if every speaker in a debate agrees to support a proposition and then, in the Division, for some reason or other, an entirely different decision is taken? That is unparalleled.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No matter what the hon. Gentleman's reminiscences may be, it is not for the Chair to seek to discern what governs hon. Members' behaviour in the House in such circumstances.

Amendment proposed: No. 17, in page 6, leave out lines 27 to 36.—[Mr. Tony Lloyd.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 22, Noes 123.

Division No. 59]
[6.06 am


AYES


Battle, John
McCartney, Ian


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Marek, Dr John


Clay, Bob
Martlew, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Meale, Alan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fatchett, Derek
Morley, Elliott


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Skinner, Dennis


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Steinberg, Gerald


Hardy, Peter



Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr.Frank Cook.


Loyden, Eddie






NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Knapman, Roger


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Ashby, David
Lightbown, David


Atkinson, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Baldry, Tony
Lord, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maclean, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Mans, Keith


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Brazier, Julian
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Brooke, Hon Peter
Miller, Hal


Browne, John (Winchester)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Burns, Simon
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Burt, Aiistair
Moate, Roger


Butler, Chris
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Moss, Malcolm


Carrington, Matthew
Neubert, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Paice, James


Cran, James
Patnick, Irvine


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Porter, David (Waveney)


Curry, David
Portillo, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Redwood, John


Day, Stephen
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Devlin, Tim
Riddick, Graham


Dorrell, Stephen
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Durant, Tony
Rowe, Andrew


Emery, Sir Peter
Ryder, Richard


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fallon, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Farr, Sir John
Shaw, David (Dover)


Favell, Tony
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Franks, Cecil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


French, Douglas
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gale, Roger
Stern, Michael


Gardiner, George
Stevens, Lewis


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Gill, Christopher
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Summerson, Hugo


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Gow, Ian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Thornton, Malcolm


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Thurnham, Peter


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Tracey, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Tredinnick, David


Harg reaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Trippier, David


Harris, David
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hayes, Jerry
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hayward, Robert
Wheeler, John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Whitney, Ray


Hind, Kenneth
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Wiggin, Jerry


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Wilshire, David


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Wood, Timothy


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Yeo, Tim


Hunt, David (Wirral W)



Irvine, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Jessel, Toby
Mr. Eric Forth and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)



Kirkhope, Timothy

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 10

INCORPORATION OF PROVISIONS OF ACTS OF 1956, 1963, 1968, 1979 AND 1981

Mr. Loyden: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 10, line 18, at end insert—
'(cc) Section 21 of the Act of 1956 shall have effect as if, after the word "Minister", where it secondly occurs, there


were inserted the words "and subject to such conditions as he may require", and as if for the words "harbour to its former condition" there were substituted the word "navigation".'.
The House should applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for bringing to it his great knowledge of ecology. His contribution has made many of us aware of the possible consequences of the Bill. I do not intend to follow him. I am sure that if I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would call me to order.
I want to deal with the navigation of the river itself, a matter as important as the ecology. We have been dissatisfied with the lack of evidence so far produced by the promoters on the feasibility study, which is central to the Bill. Although, I recognise the importance of the clauses we have debated, one of the most important aspects of the Bill is the effect of changes in the harbour on the meandering of the river and, consequently, the dredging that may be necessary. We are not satisfied that there has been a serious feasibility study which would satisfy us that the intrusion of the development will not result in navigational difficulties.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend has alluded to dredging. I should like to ask, in view of his experience in the industry, about the condition of the British dredging fleet, which I understand has been almost decimated by the Government's policy. Does British industry have the ability to provide the services required to maintain ease of navigation in the channel?

Mr. Loyden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. The British dredging fleet, like the maritime fleet, is so depleted that Britain is almost wholly dependent on European, rather than United Kingdom, dredging fleets. We must take that into account in considering the Bill's implications.
I have had some experience of the industry, having worked for 28 years on the River Mersey. I have been connected with a hydrographical surveying section. When a minor development was taking place in the Mersey, four years of research were required by the local department of scientific and industrial research to carry out the surveys needed to decide the development's viability. Tidal and current observations and an examination of the salination level and of suspended solids and deposits were required. No scientist can predict what will happen when a development intrudes into a meandering river and alters it, thus causing siltation in other parts of the river. I have seen no evidence that such feasibility studies have taken place in this case. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) can convince me, although I doubt it.

Mr. Skinner: What happens if a person decided to start a feasibility study not because he was motivated by making money — unlike this exercise — but because, in the interests of the environment, he did not want to spoil the coastline or cause an intrusion? How much money would be involved in such a study? How long would the study take? Would it use British tackle? Would a feasibility study delay the scheme that we are considering and, if so, to what extent? Would the matter have to be considered in another Parliament? It seems to be a fairly long job.

Mr. Loyden: It is. I gave an example of a minor intrusion into the River Mersey. The department of scientific and industrial research and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board were involved in research. I was a part

of it for four years. It was a process of making tidal and current observations and watching where silt was deposited. No matter how well the development is carried out, there is no way of predicting the outcome of the intrusion into the river.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and emphasise the ecological arguments that my hon. Friend has put forward today. In that sense the adjacent port, as well as the immediate port, should be concerned about the consequences. A document in my possession states that the Harwich harbour authority, which lies across the river from Felixstowe, could be impeded and restricted by any development taking place at Felixstowe. Indeed, the Secretary of State would be responsible for invoking an order that would require Felixstowe to put the harbour back to its previous state. In other words, the dredging responsibility would be a matter for the Secretary of State. I have seen no evidence that that long-protracted, necessary work has been carried out in connection with the Bill.

Mr. Morley: When my hon. Friend refers to dredging, can he confirm that there are three types of dredgers in common use, the bucket dredger, the crane grab dredger and the suction dredger, whereby mud is sucked up from the bottom of the estuary? It is argued in the Bill that the company will be subject to noise limitations. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the bucket dredger in particular makes one hell of a racket when it gets going, and that it is very hard to control the noise level of such a machine in the vicinity of residential areas?

Mr. Loyden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. During my time at the dock board, one of the trade union officials who lived some three miles or more from the dock—he lived in a nice area, not a tatty area—complained that he was kept awake night after night by the workings of the engines of the bucket ladder dredgers. Bucket ladder dredgers are probably not part of the scene today, and the service is carried out by trailer suction dredging.
We must also take account of the cost of dredging. The ports of this country are affected by the fact that the whole cost of conservancy rests with the port itself, and in that respect our ports have to compete with European ports. A port with a dredging problem in addition to the normal port costs must impose on those sailing into the port the consequential cost of dredging.

Mr. Skinner: Suppose some hon. Members wanted to start a feasibility study dealing with dredging and we did not have much money or, not to put too fine a point on it, we did not want to spend money but we wanted a cheap job. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds had not been paid up fully by the police and they had only given him a six-month payment instead of a year's pay. What kind of dredging equipment would my hon. Friend suggest for a cheap job? Would he suggest the bucket job?

Mr. Loyden: Honestly, I think that my hon. Friend may have made a frivolous point. Certainly my hon. Friend's point gives me no opportunity to respond in the way that I would have wanted.

Mr. Clay: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Loyden: I want to finish this point first.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is very serious. The most costly form of


dredging is obviously bucket ladder dredging. I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is amused. There are probably machines down mines that I do not understand and he can probably tell me all about them. Bucket ladder dredging is the most costly and ineffective way of dredging. Usually it is used only around dock entrances and not in rivers. Trailer suction dredging involves moving a machine like a Hoover— using simple terms — over the bed. The machine sucks in the aggregates in suspension and lays out a river bed that can give access to navigational vessels and so forth.

Mr. Skinner: So that would be the dearest?

Mr. Loyden: That would be the most expensive, yes.
Such a study would take quite a long time. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), who has worked as a river pilot on the Mersey, could tell the House that no pilot can take a ship down the river unless he knows about hydrographical surveying, where the banks are, and so forth. His information is dependent on two factors: surveying and dredging. There is no evidence that a serious, in-depth feasibility study has taken place so that dredging will not be a problem.

Mr. John Garrett: I do not think that my hon. Friend was in the Chamber earlier when we were discussing the ecological and wildlife effects of the development. Some of us referred to noise, and the disturbance that would be caused to nesting birds by construction and the subsequent operations. That consideration is of enormous importance in relation to over-wintering and nesting birds.
Will my hon. Friend confirm that, although the suction dredger to which he refers will not make the endless cranking sound of the bucket dredger which disturbed his friend some three miles from the Mersey, the awful sucking noise would almost certainly upset a wide variety of the bird life that we hope will stay in the area?

Mr. Loyden: Obviously, there is a correlation between the ecological argument and the question of navigation. The only bird that we have in Liverpool is the Liver bird, and I do not think that that will be affected. It has not moved for the last hundred-odd years, and there is little chance that it will hibernate or fly off somewhere. However, at Helbre island, in the mouth of the Mersey, there is an international conservation area. The birds there have been affected, even by the traditional way in which the dock company and the ecologists have tried to arrange for them not to be disturbed. The House is, I believe, concerned about preserving the ecology of an area, but I am trying to concentrate on what may, in a sense, be a more practical problem.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. He is a man with considerable experience of that part of the Mersey, where the mud flats are and wildlife abounds. I believe that the changing state of the mud flats is caused partly by the river system and partly by dredging. Once there is a stable bird population, it is not as large as it would be if the river were allowed to develop at its own pace.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing Merseyside or Liverpool harbours; we are discussing Felixstowe.

Mr. Loyden: I appreciate the point that you raise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But, in a Bill of this kind, it is necessary to draw on experiences of other ports to concentrate the mind of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and enable hon. Members to foresee the possibilities — indeed, the probabilities.
I do not know how many people know the Mersey. I am merely giving an analogy. People in the area will be very concerned, and will wish to draw on experiences of the Mersey. I do not know how familiar you are with the Mersey, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that some hon. Members will know that, at one time, there were three holiday resorts on the Mersey. New Brighton was one of them. When I was a child my mother took me to New Brighton, where I played on the beach. In the 1930s the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board decided to construct a revetment down the main channel of the river. If the natural meandering of a river is altered, nobody can foresee what will happen.
It took more than 20 years to build that revetment—a wall on the bed of the river—and it destroyed the beach at New Brighton. It also destroyed the fishing and every other amenity in the area. It is now derelict and unattractive. The working class people of Liverpool no longer go over to New Brighton by ferry to enjoy themselves. The environment and navigation are closely linked.
I spent 38 years on the River Mersey, and I know what happens when there is an intrusion into the meandering of a river. The development of another dock meant that eventually both the eastern channel and the Garston channel were closed.
Harwich and the other ports on the east coast will be affected by a similar development. No account has been taken of the feasibility study or of the consequences of that development. The board does not know whether the development will affect navigation. It will lead to additional cost, because it will be necessary to introduce dredging. The tides in East Anglia may make it necessary to dredge. The cost of trying to remedy silting will be enormous.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend says that amenities of New Brighton and other resorts have been destroyed and that there could be similar blight along the east coast. [Interruption.] The nature and character of that area could be changed by these proposals.

Mr. John Garrett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am unable to hear what is being said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) because of the continual gossiping and walking about of Conservative Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Background noise does not help. Too many sedentary conversations are being conducted on both sides of the House.

Mr. Frank Cook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not so much the murmuring as the snoring that is making it difficult to hear.

Mr. Skinner: Because he worked as a dredger on Merseyside, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) knows what could happen at Felixstowe, Ipswich and elsewhere on the east coast. The natural environment could be altered because P and O wants to make a few bob.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief. The hon. Gentleman is going on at excessive length. I hope that he will bring his remarks to a close.

Mr. Skinner: I am drawing an analogy—it could be a parallel — that the Mersey experience could be transposed on to the east coast, with all the consequential development, the blight——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just had to endure the longest intervention that I have heard in 23 years in the House.

Mr. Loyden: I was about to ask my hon. Friend to give way. I have tried to explain to the House—at the time I am speaking of there were 42 dredging components in the river — that a model was erected at Wallingford that simulated the tides and activities of the river. That model was observed for 18 months by scientists and people involved in hydrographical surveying. However, by the end of that 18 months they could draw no conclusions, in spite of the fact that they had a model that simulated the tides and winds.

Mr. Clay: will my hon. Friend move to the question of who will pick up the tab if things go seriously wrong? I am sure that he has persuaded all of us that they might. In my constituency the port of Sunderland is having continually to dredge the entrance to the River Wear because if it did not do so we would not only be finished as a port but as a shipbuilding town. In effect, the local authority is financing a port authority to dredge the river. Thus the ratepayer is subsidising British Shipbuilders. We do not object to that, because we need those jobs on the river and British Shipbuilders is a publicly owned company. If events at Felixstowe led to difficulties at Harwich what come-back would the Harwich harbour company have to ensure that it did not have to pick up the tab for the irresponsibility of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company?

Mr. Loyden: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I have already touched on that point. The Minister would require the Felixstowe authority to do the dredging.

Mr. Clay: Would he?

Mr. Loyden: Whether he would or not is a hypothetical question. He has the power to impose on Felixstowe the burden of dredging.

Mr. Skinner: By bucket?

Mr. Loyden: No, bucket dredgers are no longer used.
As to the model, will the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds tell the House whether a model has been made of the Felixstowe harbour development and whether the scientific observations of it have been analysed and what conclusions have been reached?

Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend will recall the conversation that I had in the Lobby with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) who is now leaving the Chamber. He denied all responsibility for the Bill. He said that it was not his Bill, that he was not in charge of it, and that it was "Gummer's Bill". Will my hon. Friend reconsider his view? Is there any profit to be gained from addressing his question to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds?

Mr. Loyden: That is an interesting and important point. I am sure that, when he returns to the House, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will take it on board.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that, to a certain extent, his experience on Merseyside is limited? On Merseyside, the docks and harbour authority was responsible for both sides of the river. Therefore, it made decisions about the welfare of the whole of the river. Unfortunately, the Felixstowe dock and harbour authority is on one side of the estuary and the Harwich port authority is on the other side. The House has just passed a Bill to give powers to the Harwich side to extend its docks.
Who is responsible if things go wrong and. for example, mud flats develop in the wrong places? Also, the port of Ipswich needs a free channel. We have the problem of three dock authorities. There is the difficulty of predicting which new works may or may not be necessary — [Interruption.]

Mr. Loyden: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. A solo authority on Merseyside—the harbour company, as it now is—is responsible for both sides of the river. I dread to think what would be the situation if there were two authorities. In such circumstances, the authority on the other side of the river would be concerned at any Merseyside dock and harbour authority development and what effect it might have on the other side of the river with regard to dock access. At the end of the day, it is nonsense to argue about the development of the port if the river is not navigable.

Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Loyden: I shall finish my point and then I shall give way.
In a buoyed channel, which is the way in which ships are guided into a port, the port authority must assure vessels as to the depths in the various channels. In that sense, it requires one or two things. The whole matter is based upon a datum, which is a benchmark from which tidal movements are measured. I do not say for one moment that those who promote the Bill have not considered the draft of vessels that would be able to navigate the river in the likely event that a problem occurs, necessitating dredging of the river——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spy strangers.

Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Harris: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have to raise another point of order in a Division, but I am afraid that there is a repetition of previous trouble and there is obviously mischief in the Aye Lobby. Hon. Members are delaying; my suspicion is that a plot is afoot. Certain Opposition Members are anxious to wipe out the Opposition business later today, particularly Scottish questions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might be wise to avoid the extravagant language until I have found out the reason for the delay in the Lobby. Will the Serjeant at Arms please inquire into the reason for delay?

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Every hon. Member is well aware that in each Division Lobby there a certain small house that may need to be used as a matter of emergency. I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has been caught short on occasions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman heard me ask the Serjeant at Arms to make inquiries. I think that it would be sensible to await the outcome of his inquiries.

The House having divided: Ayes 4, Noes 139.

Division No. 60]
[6.53 am


AYES


Campbell-Savours, D. N.



Foster, Derek
Tellers for the Ayes:


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Alan Meale.


Skinner, Dennis





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Harris, David


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hayes, Jerry


Atkinson, David
Hayward, Robert


Battle, John
Hind, Kenneth


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bellingham, Henry
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Irvine, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Janman, Timothy


Brooke, Hon Peter
Jessel, Toby


Browne, John (Winchester)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Burns, Simon
Kirkhope, Timothy


Burt, Alistair
Knapman, Roger


Butler, Chris
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lightbown, David


Carrington, Matthew
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clay, Bob
Lord, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Loyden, Eddie


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
McCartney, Ian


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Maclean, David


Cope, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cran, James
McNamara, Kevin


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Major, Rt Hon John


Curry, David
Mans, Keith


Dalyell, Tarn
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Martlew, Eric


Day, Stephen
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Devlin, Tim
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Dixon, Don
Moate, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Durant, Tony
Morley, Elliott


Emery, Sir Peter
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Fallon, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Farr, Sir John
Neubert, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Forth, Eric
Paice, James


Franks, Cecil
Patnick, Irvine


Gardiner, George
Porter, David (Waveney)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Portillo, Michael


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Redwood, John


Gill, Christopher
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Riddick, Graham


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Gow, Ian
Ryder, Richard


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Scott, Nicholas


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Shaw, David (Dover)


Grocort, Bruce
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hanley, Jeremy
Steinberg, Gerald


Hardy, Peter
Stern, Michael





Stevens, Lewis
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wheeler, John


Summerson, Hugo
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wilshire, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thornton, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Thurnham, Peter



Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Tredinnick, David



Trippier, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Loyden: I will try to pick up the threads of the argument on navigational dredging. I am glad to see that the Minister for Public Transport is here.

Mr. Skinner: Two Ministers.

Mr. Loyden: The Minister is responsible, and the Secretary of State for Transport is also responsible, because if a problem of siltation arose out of this development, it would be the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the Minister to pick up the tab for navigational dredging, to restore the navigational path to its original state.

Mr. Clay: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so early in his speech, but he has got something wrong. It is not the Secretary of State who will pick up the tab if there is siltation or any other problem. But the Secretary of State may require the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to pick up the tab. I hope that my hon. Friend will develop this line, because we must clarify the matter. There are no clear guidelines on the considerations which the Secretary of State must bring to bear on whether he will require—[Interruption.]

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are having great difficulty hearing my hon. Friend. Will you ask Conservative Members to be a bit quieter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I said earlier that sedentary discussions on both sides of the House make it difficult for hon. Members including the Chair, to hear the debate. I hope that we can have a little more order.

Mr. Clay: My hon. Friend should explain what he believes will happen when the Secretary of State jumps the first hurdle of requiring the company to make amends for any disasters. What if the company no longer existed? The environmental disasters, including the changes in the meander of the river which he described, might last for many more years than the company. Some hon. Members may argue that if the Channel fixed link is built, many ports on the south and east coasts will be so adversely affected that they may cease to trade. In those circumstances, there would be no company which the Secretary of State could require to make amends. Who will pick up the tab then?

Mr. Loyden: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I apologise for partly misleading the House about the Minister's responsibilities, but in this case he would have to demand that the company restored the navigation channels to their previous state. My hon. Friend's question was rather wide of the amendment, but it is important to understand the effects of the Felixstowe development on


other United Kingdom ports. There is a serious imbalance in port distribution and capacity, which will give rise to serious consideration about what will happen if there is a fixed link. It could make those other ports redundant. If that happened, the ports would become fallow and would experience problems of siltation. The cost of solving the problems would be enormous, and, in all probability, the ports would be left to wither on the vine.

Mr. Skinner: Why does my hon. Friend follow the path that was laid down in this debate several hours ago? Some hon. Members have a fixation about the Common Market. Now they are talking about the fixed link. Why does not my hon. Friend accept what I said earlier? The fixed link is dead. The company has had to catch some Russian gold to get the money——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This does not have much to do with navigation at Felixstowe harbour.

Mr. Skinner: It has some connection——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand what I said, I will tell him. His remarks are irrelevant and he must resume his seat.

Mr. Loyden: My hon. Friend is right to draw our attention to that point, but he may have gone a little wide of the debate. I appreciate the point my hon. Friend makes, which is now on record, and I am sure that the House will have to concern itself with that issue, if not now then in the future.
7.15 am
On the question of navigation, I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will be able to convince the House at the end of the day, but I think it highly unlikely that he will be able to convince those of us with years of experience of the ports and of dealing with the whole question of the conservancy of ports on this issue, and the points we are making deserve consideration by the promoters of the Bill. After all, I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has no desire to see other ports adversely affected because the promoters have not seen tit to conduct a detailed analysis of the issues involved and reach the right conclusions concerning navigation.
I challenge anyone to contradict me when I say that there is no way, from a civil engineering or hydrographical surveying point of view, to predict many of these issues with any degree of certainty. Allowing for a margin of error, we insist on evidence being produced by the Bill's promoters to show that proper tidal and current observations have been carried out, along with silt-tracing surveys.
Much can be done in modern terms. For instance, it is possible to charge silt with radioactive material and then trace the silt by geiger counters fitted to vessels, following it down to see where it has gone. There has been a great deal of technological development in these areas. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is aware of these facts. Has the authority taken the trouble to see that such examinations have taken place so it can give assurances, so far as they can be given, that the navigation in that river will remain, because that is an important factor in regard to this Bill?

Mr. Clay: My hon. Friend thinks that the time has come for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths)—or the real master of the Bill, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—to

give some assurances. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should also be expecting the Minister for Public Transport, who is in his place, to give some assurances? We have discussed the role that the Secretary of State for Transport may have to play in certain circumstances, but unfortunately throughout our discussion the Minister was busy talking to his hon. Friends. The time has come for Government spokesmen to clarify these issues.

Mr. Loyden: I am sure that, given the opportunity, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will do exactly that. I hope, too, that the Minister will give some assurances, as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Is the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) aware that it would be impossible for the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) to give sensible assurances to the House in the light of what he has been saying? I have listened carefully to everything he has said for the last five minutes, and he has strung his sentences together in such a way that he has not made grammatical sense and it has been quite impossible to understand what he has been talking about.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A few nights ago some tinpot Tories were talking about wanting Latin on the curriculum, and that was snobbishness in the extreme. Now we have this little whipper-snapper, the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin)—just elected—attacking my hon. Friend, who spent years dredging with buckets and suction pumps and who is expected to know the English language inside out. I lay odds that my hon. Friend could match this Sloane ranger or whatever he is—a public school boy no doubt. I challenge the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) to make a speech comparable to that of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Loyden: I am shocked by the intervention from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). I did riot go to a public school, I left school at 14 and most of my learning occurred afterwards. If the hon. Gentleman cannot follow what has been said it is clear that he knows nothing about the Bill.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and the Minister are fully aware of what has taken place and understand the facts — despite the constant interventions from the Labour Benches. In fact those interventions are not always of value to me and have caused some incontinuity in my speech. However, do riot blame me for that. My hon. Friends are constantly intervening and that has broken the continuity of my speech. One must appreciate that I am doing my best and I am certain that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and the Minister understand what is going on. They are knowledgeable people.

Mr. Frank Cook: I believe that my hon. Friend will be assured to realise that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) who criticised his syntax, is a barrister. All students of the English language know that in the Oxford dictionary barrister is placed somewhere between bankruptcy and bastardy.

Mr. Loyden: I did not know the professional status of the hon. Member for Stockton, South, but I can never


understand barristers at any time. Lawyers speak a different language and it is not one that anyone generally understands.

Mr. Grocott: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he would be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) who has had all the advantages of an expensive education and long training. I have been listening to my hon. Friend for a short time, but it is clear to me that he has tremendous expertise on this subject. However, it may help in the wider context to judge the merits of an expensive education that has been received——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the personal exchanges have gone far enough and we should get back to navigation.

Mr. Loyden: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Member for Stockton, South if he wishes to make a contribution. The House would be interested to listen to a barrister talk about navigation or anything to do with anything.
I am glad that the Minister is present. His interest in this matter is clearly established by the fact that he is here, at this hour, listening attentively. I hope that he will seek advice from the Secretary of State on the powers that the right hon. Gentleman will have in the event of a problem arising out the development of the Felixstowe dock, which in turn could create navigation problems. How would the Secretary of State empower the Felixstowe authority to put into the pre-conditions the navigational areas of river on which the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company development will take place?
Labour Members are dissatisfied with the lack of evidence that the promoters of the Bill have put forward on all those things that I believe are necessary, based on my 28 years of experience working on the River Mersey, having spent nearly all my working life on the water—I do not drink it — and the consequences that I have mentioned. This is a serious matter, not waffle. What contingency plans do the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company or the Secretary of State have if those navigational problems occur?

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend said that the company should have undertaken a feasibility study. It should be paid for not by the ratepayers, who are probably rate capped, but by the company. He also said that the feasibility study may detail the changes that may occur. However, he admitted that the study may not show what may occur. Does it make sense to spend money on a feasibility study if we cannot be sure that it will project what will occur? Should the local authorities incur expenditure without the company having a model first?

Mr. Loyden: The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company would be responsible for the cost. There is no way of determining the consequences of any intrusion into the river on siltation and the forming of banks. Labour Members are concerned whether the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds can tell us the extent to which the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has experimented with simulated models or a feasibility study. I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the

Member for Bolsover that, at the end of the day, one has to consider that in any study there may be a margin of error that is acceptable.
The navigation of a river is a serious matter. If a river is not navigable, it dies. The draught of vessels is changing dramatically. Vessels now require a draught of 45 or 46 ft to berth in ports. Will the depth of the river be affected? I know that there are limits, but can the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company advise whether those depths will be affected?
Have the necessary steps been taken to ensure that the river remains navigable around Felixstowe and the adjacent ports? That serious question has not been answered. We have seen no evidence. The information should have been provided when the Bill was first promoted. It is a tragedy that at this late hour, long after the Bill came before Parliament, we should be discussing matters that could have been avoided if that information had been given to us earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth did the House much service by drawing our attention to these problems, and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has accepted some of my hon. Friend's arguments because of their strength. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the Minister will continue to show that sort of tolerance.
7.30 am
This is not a trivial matter; it is a serious one. It concerns the issue of whether the port and river will remain navigable, without being affected by the intrusion.

Mr. Skinner: The Bill started its parliamentary career in 1984. Is my hon. Friend saying that, in the intervening years, the company has had adequate and admirable chances to get the feasibility study under way?
Secondly, do we have any British dredgers, or will they have to be imported?

Mr. Loyden: My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) raised that very point. The Minister will be aware of it because I raised it with him. Unfortunately my union did not lay on a champagne do for us tonight. It, of course, treats this matter seriously.
There has been a dramatic decline in the numbers of British-owned and manned dredgers. We now rely almost totally on European dredgers for these ports. The Minister must take that fact into account. In the long term, the Minister must realise that we need a dredging fleet. Twenty-four hours is a lifetime in politics. Anything could happen to take those vessels off to some other part of the world—some ply their trade in north Africa—and we could be left with no dredging fleet.
I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds can give us assurances about the feasibility study and its effects. In that way we can ensure that the Bill will not entail navigational problems for Felixstowe and the environmental catchment area around it.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will my hon. Friend please be cautious? We have already received two undertakings from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) on which he has reneged. I ask my hon. Friend not to invite the sort of undertaking that could not be substantiated later.

Mr. Loyden: I can understand the cynical view taken by my hon. Friend because of what has happened. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has taken seriously points


that we have made. We want to know from him whether certain things have been done. We should be satisfied if we had an undertaking that the consequences of the development have been taken fully into account.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: There are few hon. Members who have earned and deserve so much respect as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who has been in the House for as long as I have and perhaps a little longer. In response to his speech I should like to tell him that when I first arrived here I was immediately put on a private Bill Committee, which went on for nine weeks, to consider the effects on the navigation of the Severn river of a large new steel quay that was to be built in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Sir P. Dean), now a Deputy Speaker. I learned a good deal from pilots, from masters, from hydrologists and from people like the hon. Gentleman who were expert in that subject.
Since then I have served for a time as a Transport Minister. During that period I was responsible for ports and harbours, and I had to learn—and enjoyed learning—much about the problems of navigation and dredging of the Humber and the Mersey. I might mention to the hon. Gentleman that I grew up on the banks of the Mersey. My parents had their honeymoon at Wallasey. I frequently crossed the river on the ferry to Birkenhead and to New Brighton before the tunnel was built. I share with the hon. Gentleman a great affection for that river.
No one takes more seriously the problems of navigation, of siltation and of dredging in the port of Felixstowe than the three surrounding port authorities. Harwich is very much involved, because the Harwich bar is at the opening of the river. Felixstowe is concerned because it provides for the large ships and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it has the deep water. Ipswich further up the river is concerned for its type of trade. The pilots in that river understand very well what the hon. Gentleman has been talking about, and so do I.
To answer his specific questions, there is a model which was produced some years ago; it has been updated. What it produced, among other things, was a strong recommendation that a bay on the northern side of the river ought to be filled in, because that would improve the navigation for all three ports. The Bill provides powers for that to be done so that the navigation can be improved. That is a product of the feasibility study or the model which was produced to examine that matter on behalf of all the ports. Of course, who is more concerned about the matter than those who are investing large sums of money and those who have to look after large ships and turn them round in the river? So what the hon. Gentleman has said is taken seriously.

Mr. Grocott: rose——

Sir Eldon Griffiths: No, I shall not give way. I am addressing myself to the hon. Member for Garston who made a serious speech and who is entitled to an answer.
Having listened to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I am glad to tell him that the amendment which he has moved — I take it with the support of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) — is entirely acceptable to the dock company. If the House is willing, it will be inserted into the Bill.

Mr. Hardy: The House listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths)

when he informed the House that the Bill's promoters are prepared to accept the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). I do not wish to carp, because the hon. Gentleman has heard me express gratitude in response to his earlier acceptances. Unfortunately, although I in no way blame the hon. Gentleman, the fact remains that other acceptances have not provided the necessary harvest—[Interruption.] Hon. Members can make their speeches after me, if they wish. I am addressing the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. I am not criticising him. We accept his statement gracefully, but I hope that he accepts that he cannot speak, and has not spoken, for his right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: So that the record is accurate, will my hon. Friend place on record the fact that, in each Division, Ministers have led Conservative Back-Benchers into the Division Lobby in opposition to amendments that had been accepted by the Bill's promoters?

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is right to ensure that that fact is on the record. Some less experienced Conservative Members, especially the young barristers and chartered accountants, could be forgiven for going into a different Lobby from that occupied by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. More senior Conservative Members and Ministers of the Crown who have deliberately gone into another Division Lobby after the hon. Gentleman accepted amendments have acted reprehensibly — [Interruption.] Hon. Members can make as much row as they like. The fact remains that each time I have voted—one can speak only for oneself—in accordance with my voice, and I shall continue to do so.
I do not question the acceptance of the amendment, but I should like to make some points on behalf of the conservation interest. Over the past hour or two we have heard much less about the birds and the fauna than about dredging. It was right that the House should be informed of the hydrographical and dredging interests that are so relevant to the amendment. My concern relates to the amendment directly. I think that I put the position fairly if I say that, if the harbour silted up, there would be approval for dredging to take place to restore it to its former condition. If mudflats developed because of deposition and that area were not required for the purposes of navigation, there would be no point in carrying out a dredging exercise.
In view of the acceptance of the amendment by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, my speech will not be as long as it would have been. I intended relating this point to a species that has not been mentioned in the debate—the redshank. I am sure that hon. Members who have looked at Britain's flora and fauna will acknowledge that it is an attractive bird. It is one of the species that is declining in number and may well feed in or on the mudflats that are likely to appear. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds accepted the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston that we can never be certain, no matter what trials and tests are carried out.

Mr. Clay: Will my hon. Friend clarify whether he is talking about the redshank or the spotted redshank? I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's comments closely, and we shall need to know the answer if we are to follow the full power of his argument.

Mr. Hardy: It has been a relatively long night and I had promised some hon. Friends that, to be accurate about a particular species, I would use the Latin name. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had reservations about the use of Latin in this Chamber. The species to which I was referring is a species that is——

Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hardy: I will give way in a moment.
The species to which I was referring is sometimes called the common redshank, but is actually the redshank tringa totanus. It is not absolutely in danger or really scarce, but numbers are declining quite perceptibly. That species is readily associated with this area of the east coast. If the appropriate vegetation grew on some appropriate mud flat and if the appropriate crustacea or invertebrates fed on those flats, and if those mud flats emerged as a result of tidal movements, I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds would agree that there would be no reason for those mud flats to be dredged or cleared, especially if they were not an impediment to navigation.
I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St.Edmunds will assure us that there will be no unnecessary dredging, not because some of us are repelled by the noise referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) earlier when he described the disgusting noise of the suction dredger, but because we do not believe that natural habitat should be removed unnecessarily.
Before we end the debate on amendment No. 42, I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds can obtain the relevant assurance from the sponsors and give the House satisfaction on that point. I am sure that there is general approval of my point. I hope that his assurance will be given in the full knowledge that a possible contribution to conservation can be obtained.

Mr. Skinner: I have been looking at these Latin names. Can my hon. Friend tell me what is the common name for tringula nebularia? That bird belongs to the shank family and that is my hon. Friend's first clue. When the dredging operations occur, and they may take place through bucket or suction pump operation, there will be much disturbance to nesting tringula nebularia. With all his knowledge about these birds, can my hon. Friend tell us which among the redshank and tringula nebularia will be affected most, either by bucket or suction pump operation, or by that other form of dredging referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) which I could not interpret? Will my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) shed some light on that?

Mr. Hardy: Tringula nebularia is the greenshank. I have no evidence that the greenshank is a frequent visitor to that area. There is no evidence in the information provided for me of the significance of the greenshank as a breeding species in the locality. However, the greenshank would be disturbed by the noise of this suction dredger, but even Conservative hon. Members who have been remarkably silent and probably have been sleeping during the night might be disturbed by the noise of that dredger. I assure my hon. Friend that the tringula nebularia is not particularly relevant to the amendment or to the site of scientific importance. However, the redshank is a significant local resident. It is migrant and also breeds in the area. Because of the possibility that additional habitat

and food supply can be found for the redshank and other significant, internationally and nationally important species in the area, I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will be able to amplify his assurance and that his right hon. and hon. Friends will join him in the Lobby on this amendment.

Mr. Grocott: In an effort to be fair to Conservative Members, and as my hon. Friend is an expert on this matter and can tell us about the effects on birds of changes in the estuary, will he concede that while dredging activity might threaten species in the area now, changes in the estuary might encourage birds which do not nest in the area at present to come into that area? I am trying to be fair to both sides of the House. The news would not necessarily always be bad for species. Changes in the estuary could help other species to come in.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is entitled to suggest that possibility. He has always been rather more optimistic than many other Opposition Members. I hope that his assessment materialises, but I do not share his view. I think that the possibility of harm is much greater than the possibility of good.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I merely wish to ensure that the hon. Member for Wentworth and I, who are seeking to achieve the same result, understand each other. The hon. Gentleman said that we should see each other in the Lobby to carry the amendment, but there is no need for that. If his hon. Friends do not divide the House, the amendment that he and I want will be accepted.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman's interpretation may be accurate; I would not dream of claiming omniscience. However, I think that, if he made some calculations, he would establish that the number of Conservative Members who have gone into the No Lobby greatly exceeds the number of Opposition Members who have gone into it with them.

Dr. Marek: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has said that he will vote against what he and his hon. Friends believe if Opposition Members divide the House. As far as I know, Opposition Members vote according to their beliefs. This is a free vote. I think it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to say that, if we do not divide, the amendment will be gained, but if we do, it will be lost. That is contorted logic, sadly typical of the Conservative party.

Mr. Hardy: This has been a very sad night. I am not critical of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, because his voice has matched his vote. When Conservative Members have had time to think — and. perhaps, a little sleep—they may regret having voted in a way that showed inconsistency. I accept that some of my hon. Friends have been through the No Lobby, but their number was greatly exceeded by the number of irresponsible Conservative Members in the same Lobby.

Mr. Skinner: I was one of the hon. Members in the opposite Lobby from my hon. Friend on the occassion when he believed that he was going to rescue those poor little birds. I did not join him for the very good reason that I could not put any trust in what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, and he could not guarantee that he would be able to deliver again.
Let us say—following the hon. Gentleman's logic—that he agrees with us on the amendment. Let us suppose


that no Opposition Members shout the appropriate words when the Question is put. As a result, we might be outflanked by some hon. Members not abiding by what the hon. Gentleman said. We would think that there was to be no Division. There would then be a Division, and we would have lost everything. We cannot put any trust in what the hon. Gentleman said, in view of experience.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to his interpretation. I merely say that I believe the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to have voted honourably and properly, and I deeply regret that so many of his hon. Friends have placed him in a position that may be seen as embarrassing.
I do not wish to continue much longer; I did not intend to make a long contribution. I wanted to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who has been waiting patiently for some time to speak in this debate, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill).

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Much has been said throughout the night about birds. However, many other species will he affected by the draconian measures that are contained in the Bill. Are my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) able to enlighten the House about the effect on fish of these operations?

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, although a great deal has been said about birds, very little has been said about other aspects of the British flora and fauna. The international importance of this habitat for certain species of birds has led to its designation as a site of special scientific interest. We seek an assurance that there will be no destruction of a habitat if it does not impede navigation.

Mr. Frank Cook: If my hon. Friend should seek an accommodation with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), would it not be prudent to recall that when there were discrepancies in the Lobbies a few Conservative mavericks voted against the agreement? Apart from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, there was a well-orchestrated and well-disciplined effort by Conservative Members to vote down the agreement.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is entitled to reach that conclusion, though not because of malpractice by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover reminded us earlier that the Bill has been before the House for a very long time. In all the Divisions the old school tie has taken the place of the three-line Whip and it has proved to be just as influential as the harshest discipline that can be imposed by the Minister. Because hon. Members should have been able to exercise their judgment, Opposition Members were horrified to find that Conservative Members voted to a man in favour of the destruction of this site of special scientific interest. I hope that maturity, good sense and a wish to assist the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will apply to this amendment. That would alleviate slightly the inconsistency that, sadly, Conservative Members have demonstrated in the Division Lobbies.

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) has helped the House on more than one occasion with his detailed knowledge of navigation. On this occasion he has helped the House by dealing with

navigational safety and with the need for dredging. He expressed anxiety about the certitude of safe navigation in the Felixstowe area.
If carried, amendment No. 42 would empower the Secretary of State to request the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to remove any accumulation of silt resulting from new works that appear to him to impede free navigation in the Harwich harbour, or to cause this work to be carried out. That should reassure the hon. Member for Garston that his anxieties have been properly taken care of.
Restoration of navigation, as proposed in the amendment, seems to be a narrower objective than restoration of the harbour to its former condition. We are perfectly happy to accept amendment No. 42.

8 am

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I have sat here for about 12 hours waiting to speak, but on every amendment procedural motions have been moved to destroy debate.
I should like to draw attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) who has tried to speak in every debate but has not been called. [Interruption.] Tory Members seem to be raising a hubbub; some of them have not been here all night. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) has been here for a considerable time, but even he did slip out on certain occasions. I do not think that he would be in a good position to instruct the House as to what happened in his absence.
We are grateful for the progress that has been made in these amendments. I am a little disappointed that the Minister did not in his extremely brief speech spell out the circumstances in which he would want to use these powers. The amendment gives the Minister additional powers. It would have been to the benefit of the House if he had spelt out the circumstances in which they would be used.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment leaves the power with the Secretary of State for Transport? Some of my hon. Friends were wondering whether there should be joint power between the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment. The point of the amendment is to balance the right of navigation with environmental rights. Will my hon. Friend press the Minister to give an assurance that, in exercising the power given by the amendment, he will balance the environmental and transport considerations?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point that I intended to raise. We have sat through many hours of debate, on the rare occasions that we heard from the Government Front Bench it has been from the Department of Transport, when it would have been of benefit if Ministers from the Department of Environment made themselves available. Possibly in these circumstances we should have heard from a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, although I appreciate that it may have found itself in a difficult position had it chosen to speak.
We heard at length from my hon. Friend the Member for Garston, who with his experience of river systems was able to enlighten the House. I recall some years ago when I was a student that I took a course in fluid mechanics. I confess to the House that I understood little of it then and


I understand even less now. However, I appreciate how difficult it is to make predictions about the movements of fluid and how much more unpredictable it is when those fluids come into collision with solid bodies. The ability to make long-term predictions about movement defies even those who are expert in those matters.

Mr. Grocott: Will my hon. Friend address his remarks to the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) about a feasibility study? I came here with an open mind—I did not hear the previous debates—but I was unconvinced by the remarks of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who talked about a plan being considered, and tried to suggest that it was a suitable way of assessing whether changes in water movements were suitable. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston talked about a full-scale feasibility study. It seems to be quite inappropriate to talk simply in terms of a model. A model could be a cheapjack way of assessing problems. We should consider whether a feasibility study or a model is sufficient.

Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure whether the charge of cheapjack can be levelled against an organisation that is prepared to spend a great deal of money entertaining Conservative Members to encourage them to stay here all night to vote. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) raises an important point. One of the criticisms that Opposition Members level at the promoters of the Bill is that they simply failed to make the information available to those of us who have taken a serious interest in the Bill for many years. Even less so have they made information available to those such as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, who, because he was temporarily absent from the House for some years, was unable to follow the Bill's progress in the last Parliament. For those reasons, even at the end of the Bill's stages through the House, we find that we do not know what reliability we can place on the company's feasibility study into the river system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Garston, who is a man of great experience, as has been conceded by all hon. Members, has had great compliments paid to him by the promoters of the Bill. From his long experience, he expressed the strong view that, without such a feasibility study, it would not be reasonable or responsible for the House to look at the future of the river system, particularly the navigation system, and have any confidence or certainty about what it would produce.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out the need to take environmental issues into account. Quite clearly, one of the major thrusts of the debate over the past hours has been the importance of the river ecosystem that has developed over many centuries. Quite clearly, changes will take place when the harbour is built. At the time of such changes, my hon. Friends——

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for Opposition Members to be asleep? It is disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker: It may well be that they are better able to concentrate with their eyes closed.

Mr. Lloyd: Even asleep, my hon. Friends make a bigger contribution than the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) does, with all his faculties seemingly intact. Nevertheless, I welcome him to the debate. That may have been his first or second intervention. It certainly was not the best contribution that has been made over the course of these long hours.
My hon. Friends have suggested that the changes that will be induced by the harbour system could produce results of all kinds. I am grateful to the expert in fluid mechanics who has tried to explain to me the intricacies of the manner in which the river will work. I am genuinely grateful for that. He did it with considerably more gusto than ability. Nevertheless, I am grateful for what little help I ever get from Conservative Members.
I was trying to make a simple point. All hon. Members recognise that the river system will change. Some of my hon. Friends suggested that it will change for the better. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) was of the view that it would be rather for the worse. I share his view for the simple reason that the mud flats as they exist in the Felixstowe area are the product of many centuries of development. The precise balance of the system has developed over many a long year. Even the development of the new mud flats will not immediately mean benefits for crustacea, oyster beds or the great variety of life that presently exists. Clearly, the mud flats will be incapable of sustaining the present level of life on the beds. That means that the migrant and domestic bird populations will no longer have their present feeding grounds. It is inevitable that the environment and the bird population will suffer.
For all those reasons, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish suggested that the Minister should take into account environmental factors. I think that the hon. Gentleman is indicating that he will take them into account. However, it would greatly benefit the House if he would make it clear that he will consult his colleagues in the Department of the Environment to ensure that there is an agreed strategy, rather than a strategy led by the Department of Transport alone. The Minister is nodding and seems to be making that clear. The House will welcome that undertaking and expect him to keep it.

Mr. Loyden: I am guilty of omitting one point. There are two types of dredging — dredging for navigational purposes and commercial dredging, in which aggregates are dredged by private companies. Most of the environmental problems on the Mersey arose as a result of commercial dredging for aggregates for the building industry. Will my hon. Friend pursue that point and seek assurances that commercial dredging will be controlled, as well as navigational dredging?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, with the knowledge and experience that his background has afforded him. I hope that the Minister will respond to it in the same gracious manner in which he made it clear that he intends to take the environment into account in his deliberations. Will he take into account my hon. Friend's important point about the commercial exploitation of the river system?

Mr. Skinner: rose——

Mr. Lloyd: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will correct me if I have failed to understand.

Mr. Skinner: The Department of Transport may decide to dredge the river for environmental reasons and may assure the House that the dredging is for that purpose alone. But someone who is in for making a few extra pounds, may come along and say, "Look, I've got a better scheme than that. Never mind about dredging the river system for purely environmental reasons. I've got a lorry and I've got a firm outside. I can dredge it and make some money by getting the sand and aggregates. I can make a big fat killing." If that happens, environmental reasons go by the board. The river system has been dredged but those dredging it have been motivated by the desire to make money. The net result is that the environment has not been protected but the pocket has been lined. In his discussions with the Minister, my hon. Friend should make sure that he establishes the kind of dredging that is to take place. I shall not vote with my hon. Friend if I believe that there is half a chance that there will be commercial dredging rather than dredging for environmental reasons. Therefore, notwithstanding what the Minister has said, there could be a Division.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend raises a serious point. I fear that, during the long hours of the debate, some cynicism has grown up among my hon. Friends who normally suffer from no such feelings about Conservative Members. Were it not for the long night I would find it almost hard to believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is suggesting that a company such as P and O might put profit before other matters. Perhaps my hon. Friends feel that they have been betrayed during our proceedings, and their cynicism may not be totally unjustified.

Mr. Skinner: Come on: let's grow up. We know the score. P and O will come along and shoot all the little birds and put them on the breakfast tables of its liners the following morning while the commercial dredgers come in and pick up the sand and aggregates to make some more money. I do not intend to go along with that.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend obviously touches on matters of great concern to the House. For Conservative Members who have not been with us during the course of the night I should say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has been raising those issues for some hours now. He has expressed concern for the fate of the ringed plover. He has suggested that P and O may see the ringed plover as simply open to commercial exploitation, which will result in them being served up by the stewards on the various liners and that P and O's only interest in the whole exercise is one of profit. We have not heard a word from Conservative Members that could give any comfort to those of us who are trying to obtain satisfaction on that. Therefore, my hon. Friend does not raise those matters in a totally cynical way.

Mr. Morley: When dredging takes place, it is often expensive to move the spoil to deep water for disposal and, as we all know, competitive tendering can attract some undesirable people into the market who just want to cut corners in order to maximise profits. Such people may be tempted not to carry the spoil out to deep water but to dump it as close to the workplace as possible and cut corners, just as many private contractors have cut corners in the past. If dredging is to take place at Felixstowe, will my hon. Friend seek assurances on that from the Minister?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend also seems to suffer from the growing cynicism among Labour Members that all may not be well with the private sector, or even with the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport is responsible for highway design on some of the roads under the control of the county councils. It was the Department of Transport which decided to institute the process of tendering and which refused, in certain circumstances, to allow the county council to tender for contracts above a certain size, because it felt that the contract would be carried out more reliably by the private sector. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) knows that we can trust local authorities to do the job. With that sort of background, my hon. Friend's concerns may prove to be not totally unfounded. What assurances can we be given that, in exercising responsibility for transport and. for maintenance and navigation, he will guarantee that a cheap and nasty job is not done in the interests of cutting a few corners and saving a few bob?

Mr. Skinner: One of the dredging companies, using the old bucket system, dredging for commercial reasons in order to make a quick buck, could deliberately move the aggregates, the sand and so on and leave it deposited close to where it removed it. That company could have a friend down the road with the suction pump system. The first company is saying "Everything's all right, Jack. I'm going to make some money out of this. I'm not going to shift the spoil very far." Along comes the bloke with the suction pump who will have to move the spoil for a second time. It will cost a small fortune and there will be two firms, one with the bucket dredger and the other with a suction pump dredger, making money out of the job.

Mr. Lloyd: I see that the Minister for Public Transport has been so struck by the force of the argument by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover that he has had to quit the Chamber and leave others to answer the questions. I hope that the Minister now occupying the Front Bench is able to give some reassurances, which his hon. Friend failed to give the House during the moments that he occupied the Dispatch Box. There is a belief that corners will be cut. There is a belief that in cutting those corners the private sector will look after itself and that the public interest and wider environmental interests — my lion. Friend the Member for Bolsover has drawn attention to the interests of the mammal and bird life in the area, particularly the ringed plover — will not be protected. We have had no assurances from the Government that those interests will be taken into consideration.

Mr. McCartney: Will my hon. Friend give way? [HON. MEMBERS: "He is awake!"] At least I have been here throughout the night, unlike other hon. Members.
For a number of years I have worked and lived in Dover, and during that time a new terminal was constructed on the western arm of the dock. To construct that terminal, thousands of tonnes of cubic sand were removed from the Goodwin sands. There was miscalculation by the construction company. The sand was never taken back to Goodwin sands; it was left adjacent to the construction site. There is a need to look at this matter, because companies do make miscalculations and do not replace what they have taken out.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which is of such concern to hon. Members opposite that


one or two of them have woken up. First, he is right to draw attention to Goodwin sands. Secondly, he reminds me of dredging by the Department of Transport some years ago in my area when the Department was sponsoring the M63 motorway which was built to the south of Manchester. At that time, an artificial dredging pump was created. Rumour has always had it — I do not know whether this is true, but it has never been denied—that in dredging the pond, those undertaking the work got the dimensions wrong. Instead of having it so many yards long and so many deep, the figures were reversed, so we now have the deepest but smallest dredging pond in the United Kingdom. If that can happen when dredging for motorways, I am sure that it is more likely to happen when dredging, with all the imprecision which my hon. Friend the Member for Garston has already explained is inherent in dredging on the sea front.
In order to make some progress, and as it seems to be quiet in the Chamber, the issues before the House are fairly simple. We have made some progress; it has been recognised that there is a wider interest than navigation needs. The Minister has stated that they will be taken into account, as will environmental interests. I would be more impressed if the Bill had something specific for the promoters — [Interruption.] I am told that our amendment gives power to the Secretary of State for Transport. This is not my amendment; it is tabled in the name of some of my hon. Friends. I say on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition that we are grateful that my hon. Friends have tabled those amendments to improve this Bill. It would be unreasonable to expect hon. Gentlemen — amateurs assisted by various under-funded groups such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—to have the competence, draftsmanship and design skills of those who pay a small fortune to promote these Bills, the highly paid agents who do regular work.
My hon. Friends have achieved the signal success of getting the promoters to accept so many amendments. I say to Conservative Members, particularly the sponsor of the Bill, that it is an odd state of affairs that, although these things have been discussed not just over the last few hours—we are coming into the fourth year of this Bill's progress through Parliament — at this late stage we are beginning to recognise, in the amendments which have been accepted, that the environment is important.

Mr. Grocott: In summing up, will my hon. Friend help those of us who have not had the benefit of being here during the last hours while all this has been going on? I am concerned that there have been so many unanswered questions, despite the length of the deliberations. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend would tell us, from his recollection—perhaps my hon. Friends will intervene to help here—what value we can place on assurances given by the Bill's promoters. We are told to accept assurances on this amendment on the grounds that a model has been constructed. We must have some evidence about the credibility of their assurances. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) has more expertise than anyone, and he knows more about the costs of feasibility studies than can be considered in glib answers by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E.

Griffiths). Those of us who are new to debates on this Bill would be helped to know how many of the assurances given by the promoters have been fulfilled.

Mr. Lloyd: As ever, my hon. Friend has been most helpful and has drawn the attention of the House to an important issue. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, and especially those who are fairly new, have begun to discover the credibility gap. Many of us discovered it a few hours ago, when we were led to believe that the promoters could deliver the vote — especially since it was obvious before then that the vote was being delivered on behalf of the Conservative party. Yet the promoters could not deliver their promises during the vote. We do not know what reliance we can place on comments made by the promoters, whether directly in the House or about the long-term future of the Bill.
I must disappoint my hon. Friend and admit my ignorance. I do not know how many times the promoters of the Bill have lived up to their promises. Perhaps my hon. Friends can help me, especially those who have a more intimate knowledge of the Bill than I have.

Mr. Grocott: Does my hon. Friend further agree that hon. Members who are in my position—there are many in the Conservative party—would be ill-advised to be anything other than deeply sceptical about the Bill? From what I have heard so far, there seem to be large question marks over whether the promoters will live up to the assurances that have been given. At the very least, we can assume that there will be abstentions from all Conservative Members who were not here for previous debates on the Bill.

Mr. Lloyd: Unfortunately, my hon. Friend attributes rational behaviour to Conservative Members, but rationality goes out of the window when the Government Whips are involved. We are told that it is not a whipped Bill, that this is private legislation, but the Chief Whip has spent many a happy hour with us during the night. He has played an important part in delivering the promoters' required votes on closure. There is no hope of rational behaviour among Conservative Members, who know little. The fact that Conservative Members are ignorant has not stopped them voting in the past, so there is no reason to assume that they will do so now.

Mr. Grocott: rose——

Mr. Skinner: rose——

Mr. Lloyd: For the sake of variety, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Skinner: In that case, why did my hon. Friend advise the House to accept the word of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that he would accept the amendment? I assume that my hon. Friend is leading up to the point of saying, "We will give it another ride." On the basis of what he said at 4 or 5 o'clock this morning, I believe that we should examine what happened in practice. Never mind the promises, the theory or the rationality : the fact is that they did not deliver between 4 and 5 o'clock this morning. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who was probably in bed, obviously did not know what happened. The fact is that the promoters made a promise, but then did not deliver. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford will understand that some of us are not prepared to go down


that road again. What advice will my hon. Friend give us? Has he made his mind up? Will he accept the word of the promoters this time? Will he give them a second chance?

Mr. Lloyd: I may well have given my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover certain advice on previous votes, but because of the procedural motions put forward by Conservative Members, I never had the chance to persuade my hon. Friends one way or the other. That is something that I bitterly regret. In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, I believe that he should be given the opportunity to explain his absence during the course of the debate.

Mr. Grocott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. At the beginning of the debate, before my short period of absence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I did point out that politics is something of an endurance test and that Conservative Members had the huge advantage of constant hospitality provided to sustain them.

Hon. Members: No, not true.

Mr. David Shaw: rose——

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend should give way to the bald eagle.

Mr. Shaw: He should, because I am a jolly nice chap —[Interruption.]

Mr. Grocott: We discussed the matter of hospitality earlier on in our debate. I believe that that hospitality was beneficial to those Conservative Members who took advantage of it. We still do not know what that hospitality consisted of. I am wondering——

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you give us advice on what is a statement, what is an intervention and what is a speech? We seem to be having constant statements and speeches from the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott).

Mr. Speaker: I sense that the House wishes to get on with this. I think that in his intervention the hon. Member for The Wrekin should be questioning his Front Bench spokesman and not making a speech across the Chamber.

Mr. Grocott: I wonder whether the hospitality team would now he serving breakfast? That gives Conservative Members a further advantage when considering the Bill. Those Conservative Members who, in common with myself, have not unfortunately heard the previous four years of discussion on the Bill might be sustained, helped and even persuaded about how to vote. I would be especially attracted by breakfast at the moment, but I am unable to leave in case I am criticised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Obviously the night's events have been long, and it is only fair that I place it on record —Conservative Members would expect me to be that charitable to them—that all the entertainment facilities were called off literally at the last minute last night. Conservative Members were taken for a ride. They were brought here under the pretence that they would be entertained all night with films, drink and all kinds of things only to find that they have had to pay for their own all night.

Mr. John Garrett: I may be able to help my hon. Friend. I should confess that at about 9 o'clock last night I went into the Jubilee Room to find it empty and rocking slightly, rather like the Marie Celeste, having been evacuated, I imagine by a number of Conservative Members. All that I could detect of their presence was some 25 glasses containing the dregs of a rather unpretentious Bulgarian chardonnay.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentlemen in question have my sympathy on the grounds that they had to pay for themselves. I assume that they had to pay as no hospitality was provided. That confirms my view that they were taken for a ride by the organisers of the non-existent thrash.

Mr. Alan Meale: I can inform my h on. Friend that I have a copy of the letter that was sent to hon. Members on House of Commons headed paper and in House of Commons envelopes. I remind my hon. Friend that the letter stated :
Refreshments will be served from 10.30 pm. You are most cordially invited to a late night champagne supper party at the St. James Court Hotel. Wives are most welcome too. There will be film shows from midnight onwards.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This has already been mentioned many times. When I was in the Chair earlier, I was given to understand that the party had been cancelled. so I do not think that there is much point in drawing attention to it now.

Mr. Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering whether the films were educational and whether Conservative Members were to be shown films on dredging or the effects of the Bill on bird life?

Mr. Lloyd: It is clear that we have come to that time in the morning when the House would like to make progress. However, before I sit down. I should like to respond to the challenge thrown at me by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, who asked me whether I was going to be gullible and be led once again down the potential primrose path by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and whether I would be advising my hon. Friends to follow suit. I do not think that I can follow that second course. I have to tell my hon. Friends that they will have to use their own discretion. They are all people of judgment and integrity. Because I was brought up in the way that I was—to believe in charity—because: I have implicit faith in the persuasive powers of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and because I know how he has been betrayed by his hon. Friends, I cannot believe that he would fall into that same trap again. I am prepared to test that once more. Some of my hon. Friends may want to follow suit, but I can give no guarantees to the House about what may happen.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has responded admirably. It is a free vote. Unlike Conservative Members, Labour Members will vote according to their conscience. The only reason that I asked my hon. Friend to comment was so that I could evaluate what he was prepared to do. not for him to give instructions to any other hon. Member. He has now explained that he will give the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds another run for his money. I cannot go down that road. It is a free vote and, because we have had to deal with matters such as this throughout the night, some Labour Members will be voting one way and some another


way. Some of us believe that we cannot trust the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. He led us down the wrong path last time.

Mr. Lloyd: I have two final points. First, the House will now vote and we will see whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is right or whether I am right. Secondly, the debate may still be young. I believe that many of my hon. Friends still want to speak. It would be wrong of Conservative Members if they did not listen and consider what my hon. Friends have to say, as I am sure they will. They have not been charitable so far, but I am sure that they will want the debate to continue. At the end of the debate, the House may unite on the amendments. It is for my hon. Friends who want to speak so to persuade Conservative Members.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Division has been going on for a long time. Do you judge that it is time that the House knew the result of the vote? This has happened repeatedly throughout the night.

Mr. Speaker: I have already asked for inquiries to be made about what is happening in the Division Lobby. I am waiting to hear.
Later—

Mr. Speaker: I request that the Serjeant at Arms should find out what is happening in the Lobbies.

The House having divided: Ayes 164, Noes 32.

Division No. 61]
[8.38 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Aitken, Jonathan
Curry, David


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Allason, Rupert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arbuthnot, James
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Dicks, Terry


Ashby, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Ashdown, Paddy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aspinwall, Jack
Durant, Tony


Atkinson, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fallon, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Farr, Sir John


Batiste, Spencer
Favell, Tony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Eric


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Franks, Cecil


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, George


Browne, John (Winchester)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gill, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butler, Chris
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gow, Ian


Carrington, Matthew
Gower, Sir Raymond


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Chapman, Sydney
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Cope, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cran, James
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)





Harris, David
Pawsey, James


Hayes, Jerry
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hayward, Robert
Redwood, John


Hind, Kenneth
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rowe, Andrew


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ryder, Richard


Irvine, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jackson, Robert
Scott, Nicholas


Janman, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knapman, Roger
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Knox, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lang, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Stern, Michael


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stevens, Lewis


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lightbown, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Summerson, Hugo


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lord, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Macfarlane, Neil
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


MacGregor, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Thorne, Neil


Maclean, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Major, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mans, Keith
Tracey, Richard


Maples, John
Tredinnick, David


Marland, Paul
Viggers, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Ward, John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Wheeler, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Whitney, Ray


Moore, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wiggin, Jerry


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Wilshire, David


Moss, Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Moynihan, Hon C.
Yeo, Tim


Neale, Gerrard



Neubert, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Paice, James





NOES


Allen, Graham
Loyden, Eddie


Battle, John
McCartney, Ian


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McNamara, Kevin


Clay, Bob
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Martlew, Eric


Dalyell, Tarn
Maxton, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Morley, Elliott


Dixon, Don
O'Neill, Martin


Dobson, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Duffy, A. E. P.
Steinberg, Gerald


Foster, Derek
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Wilson, Brian


Grocott, Bruce



Hardy, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Harry Barnes.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)



Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division ; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, MR. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to amendment No. 21.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Division has proved to be abortive. In conversation with me, a few moments ago, the promoter of the Bill said that in his opinion a vote of no in the Division was to do the work of P and O. He may be right or he may be wrong, but as the promoter of the Bill he would at least be entitled to state certain views.
Although this may be a difficult matter for you to rule on, Mr. Speaker, as the Division was aborted, it has come to my attention that the Prime Minister went into the no Lobby some moments ago to cast her vote for—in the opinion of the promoter of the Bill the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds — P and O. Can you advise the House whether that is in order?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House makes its decision by Division. If there are no Tellers for the Ayes, I am bound to declare that the Noes have it.

9 am

Mr. Lloyd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My question was in no way intended to reflect on your decision to call off the Division. I accept that, without Tellers, you are not in a position to allow it to go ahead. I was merely seeking clarification.
If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is right, and the P and O vote was a no vote, is there any significance in the fact that the Prime Minister chose to vote no for P and O?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can have no knowledge of why Members of the House, whether they are right hon. Members or Back-Benchers, vote aye or no, provided that their feet follow their voices.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that there were four Tellers for the Opposition and none for the Conservatives. Over the years, certainly since I have been an hon. Member, it has been customary to advise new hon. Members acting as Tellers, who may not have the necessary experience on where they should sit and what they should call. I cannot understand why on this occasion the Tellers were not given such advice.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I try to be as helpful as I can to new hon. Members, and both the new hon. Members telling for the Noes will be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that I instructed them on exactly what they should do.

Mr. Forth: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not reasonable to assume that, as we have had a good many Divisions over many hours, all hon. Members attending the debate and following the progress who are prepared to act as Tellers know what they are doing? If that is not the case, their colleagues can advise them. To suggest that, at this stage in the proceedings, hon. Members do not know how to act as Tellers is patently absurd.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What has occurred has occurred, and we cannot undo it. I do not think that there is any profit in continuing.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last night—if I may describe it thus—we asked you whether you had been informed by the Government whether they intended to make a statement on the proposed merger between British Airways and British Caledonian. [Interruption.] Despite the obnoxious

moaning of Conservative Members, you, in discharge of your duties as protector of the House, gave it as your opinion that such important matters should be reported to the House.
I wondered whether you had yet heard from the Government, or from the Leader of the House in particular, whether such a statement would be made. We understand that the Secretary of State for trade and Industry, Lord Young, is now announcing not only the outcome of the deliberations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but the Government's response to them. We think it only right and proper that, as Lord Young cannot come here, because he is a Stranger — apparently he is a stranger to the Prime Minister nowadays — the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should be present to explain exactly what is going on, and to report to the House.
The matter is particularly important because, although there are a good many Tory landowners from Scotland in the House of Lords, there is no elected member of the House of Lords from Scotland. The future of British Caledonian, the jobs that go with it and British Caledonian's connections with Scotland are very important to my hon. Friends from Scotland. It is not being suggested, however, that the Government will make a statement today.

Mr. Speaker: The House knows that it is for the Government to decide whether to make a statement. Normally I am told at 12 o'clock. The Annunciator then shows that a statement is to be made immediately after Question Time.

Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you recall any previous occasion when such a decision has been made the subject of a statement in this House? You know, as the House knows, that because Tuesday's business is not yet completed it is still Tuesday in the House. Is it not, therefore, illogical and absurd for something that is happening outside the House on Wednesday to be dealt with by the House on Tuesday?

Mr. Bryan Gould: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) has raised an interesting puzzle, but it is legitimate to seek your guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was right to point to the difference between this case and many others. While the House is sitting the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is giving information outside the House to a press conference. That information ought properly to be given first to this House. We should like you to look at the precedents. It is on that point that we seek your guidance.
There can be little doubt that the Secretary of State is being required to exercise his judgment on an important issue. It affects both competition policy and airline policy. Not least, it affects about 25,000 jobs. We understand the Secretary of State's problems, and we regret the fact that he cannot come to this House and make a statement. However, he has deputies—for example, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. If he is still busy pulling Britain out of all further European space research, the Secretary of State could send another Department of Trade and Industry Minister. If a decision of such magnitude is being announced to others while the House is sitting, it is right


that a Minister should first announce that decision to the House. To do otherwise is to treat the House with contempt.
During the last few minutes we have ascertained that even now we cannot obtain from the Library a copy of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report, or any indication of what the Secretary of State is about to say. That places the House in a uniquely disadvantaged position in relation to the whole of the press corps and all the parties to the decision. To add insult to injury, I understand that one of the parties that is most affected by the decision — British Airways — is to hold a press conference at 11 o'clock this morning. It will then be able to comment to the press at large on the Secretary of State's decision, before the House has been formally informed of that decision. We look to you, Mr. Speaker, to defend the rights of the House.

Mr. Speaker: It is not for the Chair to dictate whether a statement should be made. I repeat what I said earlier. If there were to be a statement it would normally be made after Question Time today, and by noon I should have been informed that a statement was to be made. At that time I shall consider any other applications that may be made for information on this subject.

Mr. Graham Allen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not expect that I should speak in this debate, but when I was lying cosily in bed this morning at about 7 am the "Today" programme came on the radio and I heard that a statement would be made today about the British Caledonian-British Airways merger. I assumed that the report referred to a statement being made in the House. I hurriedly dressed, washed and came to the House to hear the statement, like many other Labour Members. As I listened to the report, I realised that the statement would not be made to the House but to a press conference at some point in the morning. I felt it incumbent on me to come to the House to raise points of order should the House be sitting. [Interruption.] I had a lovely night's sleep and I would recommend it to Tory Members, some of whom are already taking my advice.
I came to the House to ask on a point of order that the Leader of the House—who is now present—should say why a statement cannot be made to the House on the merger before it is made public outside. Mr. Brian Redhead on the "Today" programme inferred that——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but it is not a point of order. He has asked a question of the Leader of the House, which is not a matter for me.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that it is normal practice for the Government to inform you by noon whether they intend to make a statement. However, we are in an abnormal position. You will recall that there are precedents for the Government to interrupt business to make a statement. It is possible for the Government to inform you and the Officers of the House that, for example, at 10 am the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will come to the House to make a statement on the Government's decision about the proposed British Airways-British Caledonian merger. Is it not within the power of the Government to

inform you that that is their intention? As we are still in Tuesday, in terms of the proceedings of the House, it is possible for the Government to interrupt today's business, albeit on Wednesday morning, to make such a statement.

Mr. David Shaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have always understood that it is your duty, to look after the interests of Back Benchers, particularly those who are prepared to sit through the night and concentrate on Bills that affect their constituents rather than frivolous Back Benchers who were in bed last night and who do not care about the business of the House. Will you therefore return the business of the House to what concerns us today, which is still Tuesday, and allow us to get on with the Bill that affects my constituents and those of many of my hon. Friends?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall deal with one matter at a time. It is possible for the Government to inform the Speaker that they wish to make a statement, but the normal time to make statements is after Question Time at 3.30 pm or at 11 am on a Friday. The disadvantage in making statements at other times is that hon. Members who would expect to be present for statements may not know about them. There are precedents, of course.

Mr. Allen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is perfectly in order.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, a few days ago, we tried to get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the House when many negotiations were taking place with regard to the BP sale. At one stage, it was agreed that the Chancellor would come to the House at the normal time. He did not appear. Further representations were made, and there were suggestions that he would appear at 7 o'clock. According to what you have had to say, Mr. Speaker, that would have been an unusual time. Generally speaking, 7 o'clock would be an unusual time for a statement to be made. However, he did not appear at that time; he finally appeared at 10 o'clock.
If it is right for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the time to appear at 10 o'clock and explain the position regarding the BP sale, it would seem to me that, when it looks possible that the normal business for Wednesday will not proceed, it is practical for the Minister to come to the House before 2.30 to make a statement on British Caledonian and British Airways. Outside this place, it is an important day. It is 11 November. Some of the idiots on the Government side would say that it is 10 November. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Happily, I was having a conversation and did not hear what was said.

Mr. Skinner: I was speaking generally, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a much-respected Member of the House. If he said anything that was touching upon the honour of an hon. Member or out of order, I am sure that he will wish to withdraw it.

Mr. Skinner: It was a generality, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Generality or not, I ask the hon. Gentleman to be a sport and withdraw it.

Mr. Skinner: It was not a matter of honour, it was a matter of intelligence. An hon. Member's intelligence can be questioned. In fact, if you had been here right through the night, Mr. Speaker, you would have heard it referred to several times.
This day, 11 November, is important for many people. On a day such as this, when there is a possibility of a statement being made outside the House by a peer of the realm, the Government should have the decency to get somebody to make a statement in the House before it adjourns.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I shall call Mr. Bennett.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On many occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have made it clear that, as a matter of principle, you believe that Ministers should make statements to the House first and statements to the press afterwards. On this occasion, it appears that a Minister—albeit from the other place—deliberately set ut to make a statement to the press early in the day, knowing that, in normal circumstances, it would have been impossible for him or a deputy representing him to come to the House until 3.30. That suggests that he was trying to avoid making a statement in the House until the matter had been thoroughly discussed outside by the press and by the companies concerned, and that he intended to come to the House only after such discussions have taken place.
Judging by your comments, Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that you would see that as a deliberate affront to the House and would want to make some inquiries. It just so happens that the House is still sitting. It is possible for the Government to make amends by stating that, within the next half hour, they will bring a Minister to the House to make a statement. The fundamental question is why a Minister of the Crown deliberately set out to call a press conference at a time when he knew that it would normally be impossible for it immediately to precede or follow a statement to the House. You should be prepared to pursue the matter. If that practice continues, the right of the House to have the first opportunity to question Ministers, before the press or others, will be further eroded.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall deal with the points as they arise. I cannot be expected to divine the motives of Members of either House of Parliament. I have no knowledge of those matters and I have nothing further to add to what I have already said on the question.

Mr. Gould: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that the Secretary of State originally intended to give a press conference at a time when the House was not sitting, which would have rendered it impossible for him to make a statement to the House beforehand. By a happy circumstance, however, the House is sitting and there is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State's deputy—it has to be his deputy for reasons that we understand—from making a statement to the House, if not before the press conference, as soon as possible after it.
I fully understand your position, Mr. Speaker. It is not for you to organise the business of the House or to decide when Ministers should make statements. However, the

Leader of the House is present. could he not come to the Dispatch Box and tell us at what earliest possible opportunity a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry will come to the House to tell us what has already been broadcast to the press corps and to the nation?

Mr. McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not patently obvious that the Opposition are intent on losing Wednesday's business? Is it not the case that you could not know of any intent to make a statement on Wednesday until 12 o'clock and that requests made before that time fall outside the time limit? Would not the most sensible thing be for the House to get on with the business before it? If we did that, we might have some hope of saving Wednesday's business and, indeed, Scottish Questions. Anyone who looks at Hansard will see the amount of wasted time and false Divisions caused by Opposition Members throughout the night with the result that we are in danger of losing Wednesday's business.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House should get on with the debate. I shall take only one more point of order.

Mr. Allen McKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, the Government could withdraw the Bill and bring it back another day. In two hours' time I shall be on local radio. My constituents are very up-to-date, keen and astute and they will be following all our business carefully. Is it right that I should have to try to explain to them why the Leader of the House has not come to the Dispatch Box at least to tell us when a statement is to be made? When I tell them all that has happened they will say that the House has been brought into disrepute by a Minister of the Crown by his treatment of the House, of hon. Members and of you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Grocott: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the hon. Gentleman as he has been rising, but this is the last point of order.

Mr. Grocott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you are not answerable for the Government, and I do not blame you for that. I am sure that you are happy with that situation. This afternoon we sat through a long debate—with you, Sir, in the Chair throughout, as I recall — on the procedures of the House. Hon. Members on both sides of the House repeatedly argued that threats to democracy do not occur like flashes of lightning but by a steady erosion of hon. Members' rights. I put it to you that twice within the last fortnight hon. Members have been unable to question Ministers on key issues that are being raised across the nation. We have been misled by the Leader of the House in the past. When he raised it——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If we can get on with this matter it may well be that we shall have Question Time and that all these matters can be resolved. That seems to be the obvious solution to the dilemma in which the House finds itself.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.
I am moving the motion because, as I understand it, the Bill has had a long and contentious passage through the night. Clearly it involves a measure of considerable significance that has aroused strong feelings on both sides


of the argument. I appreciate that significance and the strong feelings, which have been shown during the past few minutes by the Government Back-Benchers as well as by my right hon. and hon. Friends. There is a strong case for accepting that we have, to use an English metaphor, had a good innings on the Bill and that there is every justification for the House to decide that we should leave the matter and return to it on another day.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. David Shaw: rose——

Mr. Dewar: There is an important matter involving the way in which we conduct the business of the House. I am interested in some measure of consistency. It will not be beyond your memory, Mr. Speaker—it is quite recent history—that since the summer recess we have debated a Bill relating to the finances of the Scottish Development Agency. It was put on at what we thought was an inconvenient time, starting well after 10 o'clock at night and we decided to debate it on the basis that it should have the same sort of consideration as it would have had if it had appeared at 3.30 pm, as happens in the normal course of events.
The Government then took the view—I understand their reasoning — that we should adjourn and report progress because it was not neat or suitable for the House to sit interminably, and that, as it did not concentrate the mind wonderfully on the subtleties of the argument or the merits of the business, we should truncate the debate and meet on a further day. I believe that the Government made that decision at about 2 o'clock in the morning.
I accept, and Conservative Members are entitled to say, that this Bill has had a lengthy parliamentary history. I have been aware of it engaging the attention of the House on and off. However, the fact that it is highly contentious is perhaps an additional reason why we should postpone further consideration and have it at a more normal time of the day. I urge that upon the House, if you, Mr. Speaker, are prepared to accept the motion.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a matter for the House to decide. The Question is,
That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.

Mr. Dewar: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to say one or two other things.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may say them now on the motion he has proposed.

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
There is another important reason why the House should adjourn and that is the interest of hon. Members on both sides of the House in the crowded agenda that is scheduled for the coming parliamentary day. — [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to put forward reasons why he believes that further consideration should be adjourned.

Mr. Dewar: I refer to the business scheduled for today. If the Government continue their present course of action, that business is clearly at risk.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: It is a private Bill.

Mr. Dewar: Whether it is a private Bill or a public Bill, the Chairman of Ways and Means is in a position to produce more time, if that is necessary and is the wish of the House. I suggest that that is the wish of the House, or ought to be the wish of the House. Later today a number of items are scheduled, for example Scottish Question time at 2.30—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—I take the point. I make it clear that it is the business of the House to organise its affairs. It would be an unreasonable proposition that people who feel extremely strongly about the Bill being debated should artificially truncate their opposition and not debate the Bill as they see fit. I say that for hon. Members on both sides, because Conservative Members also have strong feelings. Because the House wishes to debate the Bill, the Government should not relentlessly insist on continuing the debate at the expense of other business, when the business can be easily rearranged to encompass a proper debate of the Felixstowe Bill and to allow the other business of the House to proceed. I would think that I am speaking for the vast majority of Hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. The vast majority of people will not understand why we have to sacrifice important business——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member seeks to make a case as to why further consideration should be adjourned. I ask the House to allow him to do it.

Mr. Dewar: I was trying to explain to Opposition Members that it is sometimes useful to stand back from this place, from the anger, and try to understand what people think of our democratic processes.

Mr. David Shaw: This is democracy!

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member talks about democracy. It is important that we try to protect both sides of the House. We are being asked to accept that because there are strong feelings for and against the Bill, which will involve lengthy debates, we should either artificially truncate the debate—that is the choice the Government are giving us, which cannot be in the interests of democracy or the proper debate of the Felixstowe Bill — or we shall be invited to lose significant and important business. The fault lies in the fact that we are being invited either to sacrifice important business or artificially to truncate a contentious matter which hon. Gentlemen wish to debate.

Mr. Loyden: Anybody who sat through the long hours of the debate would reject the argument that the Bill is not being taken seriously by both sides. The Bill has been subject to great scrutiny, quite rightly, and I absolutely reject the argument that this has been purely a delaying tactic. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) is aware that this has been a serious debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Those matters may be canvassed in the debate. This is a debate, and I ask hon. Members to treat it in that spirit.

Mr. Dewar: Many other hon. Members want to speak in the debate, so I shall be brief. As my words may have been lost in the babble coming from Conservative Members, I repeat and make clear my point ; there is a legitimate issue of contention in the Felixstowe Dock and


Railway Bill, and the House should allow time for its debate. We should not be blackmailed into the position where hon. Members on both sides of the House must either truncate their arguments or have to sacrifice——

Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would not be appropriate to take points of order now. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to have their say in debate.

Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If this turns out not to be a point of order, I shall think very badly of it and I shall not forget it.

Mr. Gale: This is a genuine point of order for the Chair to decide. Is it not a gross contempt of the House for a Front-Bench spokesman to try to truncate an important debate on a Back-Bench Bill when that hon. Member has not even attended the debate?

Mr. Speaker: The House will decide whether the Bill should have further consideration. That is what we are engaged upon.

Mr. Gale: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to protect Back-Bench Members.

Mr. Dewar: What I am saying should appeal to the hon. Gentleman, because I am trying to protect his interests.

Mr. David Shaw: Back-Bench Members should be saying this, not a Front-Bench spokesman. This is an abuse.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, who has not been here for very long, that I decide whether there has been an abuse. This is a debate, and I ask the House to treat it in that spirit.

Mr. Dewar: I am taking longer than I thought on this, Mr. Speaker, largely because of the difficult circumstances in which I am trying to make a comparatively simple point.
I am not unsympathetic to the necessity for a proper debate on the Bill. But we should not do it on this long-drawn-out basis—an endurance race to a conclusion—when we could protect hon. Members' interests by adjourning now and returning to it another day. That would also preserve important business, which is significant to many hon. Members, although it seems to attract scant respect among Conservative Members, which I regret.
I remind hon. Members of what they are sacrificing by their perverse wish to continue the debate instead of adjourning it to another day, when there could be more sensible, considered and refreshed discussion. Scottish Question Time is of special interest to me. If we lose it today, we shall not return to the Government's policies in Scotland until Christmas looms.
It would be sensible for the Government to consider carefully whether their determination to continue the debate, despite the sensible advice that has been offered, will redound to their credit. We understand that there will be a statement on housing in Scotland on the publication of the White Paper. There is the British Caledonian-British Airways merger, which is of considerable interest to the House. There will be a debate on transport, which anyone who takes an interest in transport will appreciate is

significant. In this instance I do not intend to dwell on why they are important because I think that anyone with half a wit would understand why. We have no wish to sacrifice them.
We are extremely interested in adjourning the debate as that will allow hon. Gentlemen with a particular interest in the Felixstowe issue to come back on another day after a decent night's sleep.

Mr. David Shaw: Why should we? We have been here all night.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) must contain himself.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) aware that Mr. Speaker accepted his motion some minutes ago? If he believes in democracy why does he not allow the House to decide the matter? Is he not contradicting himself by speaking at great length on a matter already decided upon by Mr. Speaker and given that his complaint is that the House is not getting on with the business?

Mr. Dewar: I believe that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) should recognise that it is normal to offer some explanation. That explanation would be considerably briefer if I were not constantly interrupted by shouts and calls from the Conservative Benches. If the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who I understand represents local interests, and who has been especially vocal in the past few minutes, wants to argue about adjourning now and coming back in a calmer atmosphere when matters can be properly considered, he should think about his conduct in the past 15 minutes. That conduct seems to be a remarkably good advertisement for suggesting that we all need time for reflection and time to come back in a rather more rational state of mind.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) not understand the anger that is felt on the Conservative Benches when a Johnny-come-lately comes here, after a night in bed, when we have been discussing this Bill in detail—

Mr. Grocott: This is the first contribution from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. Bennett: We have been obstructed by the hon. Gentleman's friends from England and Scotland. We are prepared to carry on with this debate and we are not prepared to sit here and listen to your arrogance [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"!] I apologise, I meant the arrogance of the hon. Member for Garscadden in coming here at this time of the morning, interrupting a debate which has been going on since 8 o'clock last night and speaking to us in this manner.

Mr. Dewar: I always enjoy the rather bouncy contributions of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). He is fairly prominent when he is on his feet or present in the Chamber because he cannot keep out of anything. I understand that he has not been exactly prominent during the debates on this Bill, but that is a matter for his conscience.

Dr. John Reid: In response to the rather synthetic anger on the Conservative Benches, [Interruption.] will my hon. Friend explain to those


Benches that, far from waiting since 8 o'clock last night, Scottish Members have been waiting for a month to ask questions.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is possible that I may be able to give the hon. Member the opportunity to say that in the debate if he wishes.

Mr. Dewar: It is clear to me that there is a great deal of anger in the House. At the end of an all-night sitting tempers get ragged and it is not sensible to conduct our business in this way. I return to the point that it is worth considering the public perception of the House and Parliament and the way that we conduct our business.

Mr. Grocott: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to put the record straight, because the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) misled the House by suggesting that he has been taking part in the debate throughout the night. I have been listening at length to the contributions in the debate and so far I have not heard any serious contributions from Conservative Members, least of all from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dewar: I hope that my hon. Friend will not resent this, but I think that a lucid examination of the activities of the hon. Member for Pembroke is not something that should delay us. However, I leave that for private discussion.
The perception of the House is important to me and, I believe, to every hon. Member. People will simply ask, "Is there not a better and more rational way of conducting our business?" If there is an issue that raises the strength of feeling that has been displayed by the uncharacteristic, I am sure, shouting of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), it seems to me that we have to recognise that there should be a proper and due time for debate, but at a reasonable and civilised hour.
I suggest that it must be right that, having had a long bash at the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, we should adjourn the House and ask those who are in charge of private business to look for another day when the debate can be continued in a calmer atmosphere. That, surely, must be in the interests of the promoters of the Bill and the people who are interested in the future of the Felixstowe dock as presumably there will not be such a fevered atmosphere on another day and we will be able to look at the arguments that are at issue. It must also be clear, if I may say so on behalf of those of us with an interest in the business of the House, that the Government will do no good by forcing on private business in this perverse and prejudiced fashion and, in the process, sacrificing so much business that is worthwhile and of importance not just to my hon. Friends and myself but to every hon. Member.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: With great respect to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and to my hon. Friends, the Bill is not the business of the Government. Therefore, it is for the promoters of the Bill to answer the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that we should now abandon our proceedings. I am bound to say

to him that, listening to his speech, it sounded to me as if the Labour party had dug its own grave and had now fallen into it. The plain situation is that the Bill has been before the House for just on four years. It has had no less than 152 hours of debate. It has had the longest Committee stage of any private Bill since the war, and probably this century.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the hon. Member give way?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry, but I will not. It has had no less than seven days' consideration and one night's consideration on the Floor of the House. In those circumstances, I think that it is totally unfair to the promoters of the Bill, to the dockers of Felixstowe, to the merchants, to the shippers, to the pilots, and to all concerned with the Bill who have waited four years for the House to deal with it, if the motion of the hon. Member for Garscadden were to be accepted. It surely would be grossly unfair to those who have been looking to this House for a conclusion on the Bill. I am bound to say that the responsibility for the fact that the House has been prevented from reaching a conclusion on the Bill, not only tonight but throughout the months and years and the debates, lies solely with those on the Labour Benches.
Of course, I understand—although I do not think the hon. Member for Garscadden does — that some Opposition Members may well feel exhausted after sitting through the night. For my part, I have never felt so fit and ready to carry through this Bill for as long as it takes to arrive at a conclusion. My right hon. and hon. Friends, including senior Ministers with heavy responsibilities, have turned up regularly, which demonstrates that they, too, are fit and ready to carry the Bill through. So it ill behoves the hon. Member for Garscadden, who will lose his Scottish questions and his debate about BCal, to come here and squeal—for that is exactly what he has done. When it comes to a vote, I believe the House will reject his motion.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said that this was private business. However, some of us saw the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister going into the Division Lobby this morning. So are we sure that this is private business? Usually, Prime Ministers of the day do not go into the Lobby to vote on private business.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not for the Chair to follow the footsteps of any right hon. or hon. Member through the precincts of the House.

Mr. George Robertson: If the Conservative hon. Members who have stirred up this synthetic indignation were really interested in the issues raised here, they would want to deal with them in a more sensible way. If, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said, this is private business, why are Government Whips scuttling around like little mice among the Conservative Back Benches trying to orchestrate this verbal hooliganism? If we are really dealing with jobs and dockers and all the other matters connected with Felixstowe, why are we not dealing with them in a far more practical way?
Perhaps the proceedings are about something else altogether. Those of us who were here in the early hours


of the morning were conscious that a deliberate exercise was afoot. It had, and has, little or nothing to do with the port of Felixstowe, and has everything to do with trying to ensure that the Government's humiliation in Scotland—[Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Robertson: It is only a matter of months since the Conservative party in Scotland was whittled down to a meagre 10 Members of Parliament out of 72. I suppose, therefore, that it is scarcely surprising that the Government want to spare themselves the further humiliation that stems from Scottish Question Time once a month. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, it was clear from the fact that even the Prime Minister participated in this business that it was an exercise designed to rob the Scottish people of the brief period of accountability when Ministers come before the elected representatives of the people.
In the last Session of Parliament the Government brought to the House another important piece of legislation, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. That was the legislation that enacted the Single European Act that the Government were committed to implementing by the discussions that took place in the European Community. The Single European Act and the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986 are of vast constitutional importance, and the Opposition wanted adequate time to debate issues that affect the sovereignty of the United Kingdom within the European Community. We said that we were willing to go through the night to allow adequate time to debate the legislation.
What was the response of the Government and the party of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds who just now made his speech and promptly departed from the Chamber? The Conservative Government's response was not to say that it was a matter of massive constitutional importance that demanded the attention and the time of the House. Their response was to bring a guillotine motion to the Dispatch Box and to get rid of that Bill, with all its ramifications and important consequences for Britain. They disposed of it in one afternoon and did not permit a single hour of debate into the night. That is where the double standards come in.
I am sure that Conservative Members are exhausted, but if they expect to be taken seriously they must tell the people that an element of consistency is involved. All their noise and synthetic anger counts for absolutely nothing to a populace that recognises that a device is being played here that will drive this sitting right through the morning specifically to prevent—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Robertson: That device is specifically to prevent the Scottish people from having an opportunity to cross-examine Ministers who are too frightened and timid to come to the Dispatch Box and justify their policies in Scotland.

Mr. Gale: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Gentleman to order several times and must ask him to resume his seat. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is obviously not giving way.

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. Conservative Members do themselves and the House no good in the eyes of the public by these orchestrated displays. It is eminently possible to have a debate that involves a clash of opinions without the hooliganism that they manifest. It persuades nobody outside.

Mr. Gale: Before the hon. Gentleman accuses us of delaying business, would he care to ask his hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) how long his speech lasted? Will he reflect on the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) spoke for 40 minutes from the Opposition Front Bench and delayed our Bill still further?

Mr. Robertson: We must come to a conclusion as quickly as possible on this motion. If Conservative Members would stop interrupting, shouting and catcalling in a juvenile, public school way, I could terminate my speech at an early opportunity.
This is an important debate. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds did not even have the courtesy to stay for the speech that followed his, but I am willing to concede to him that this is an important issue that requires debate. However, when it is used simply as a device to protect Scottish Office Ministers from those who were elected to represent the people of Scotland, it is a wholly illegitimate use of parliamentary time and does no service to the House.
I commend the motion to the House because we should return to this Bill, as we return to so many others, at a proper time, in a proper place, with proper opportunities for hon. Members on both sides of the House to participate. It is essential—this is the right of the people of Scotland—to ensure that we are not denied our one opportunity to cross-examine Scottish Office Ministers because of a device invented, orchestrated and masterminded by the Government Whips' Office.

10 am

Mr. McLoughlin: We should review the events of the past 13 or 14 hours before we are lectured by the Opposition about us somehow wanting to talk out Wednesday's business—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member needs to be heard.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am trying to trace the evening's events. Since we moved on to the Bill, there have been some 20 Divisions, one of which was called on a motion moved by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that strangers do withdraw. Only two hon. Members voted in favour of the motion. If hon. Members care to check the Official Report they will find that points of order were raised during several Divisions about the time that it was taking various hon. Members to pass through the Division Lobbies. At one time, some 32 hon. Members passed through one Lobby, but the other, with more than 100 hon. Members, was cleared well in advance. That wasting of time and eating into the debate must be put on the record.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is leaving the Chamber. Obviously, he arrived here this morning and saw what his Back Benchers had been doing. He is embarrassed by that and, to give him his due, extremely anxious to have


Scottish questions. But it is nonsense to blame Conservative Members for preventing Scottish questions. People outside this place, including those in Scotland, should look at Hansard and see the contributions made during the evening by the Opposition and some of the matters which we have been discussing. It has been a total waste of Conservative Members' time.

Mr. Battle: Like the hon. Gentleman, I have been here listening to the debate all night. I have been struck by the fact that it took seven days and a long night of debate before three amendments were conceded by Conservative Members, because of the arguments put tonight. That is the reason for supporting our case.

Mr. McLoughlin: I have heard of home goals. Why did the Opposition force Divisions on amendments that had been conceded by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) and go on to waste more time?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: I have given way enough. Other hon. Members want to speak.
It is obvious that the hon. Member for Garscadden has seen the shambles here and the shambles of press reports in Scotland during the past few months. He has now gone because he does not care. I do not know where he has gone.
Many Conservative Members are tired, but we cannot accept the lecturing from Opposition Members who have not been present in the Chamber all night. It is unacceptable for those Opposition Members to tell us that we should sacrifice this Bill in which we passionately believe and which we believe should be passed by the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, the legislation has been around the Chamber for quite long enough.

Mr. Forth: I can help my hon. Friend and the House by stating that I have just been told that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) left the Chamber to talk to the press. The hon. Gentleman is not showing the House the courtesy of listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin).

Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was very interested to hear those comments from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). He complained about the Opposition Front Bench spokesman talking to the press, but this morning on "Good Morning Scotland", which I managed to hear in London, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said how important it was that Scottish questions should take place because he wanted his English colleagues to take part and hear what was going on. However, he is now saying something entirely different. Is the hon. Gentleman allowed to have two views? Is an hon. Member allowed to have two views, one for the House of Commons and another for consumption in Scotland?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not the keeper of hon. Members' consciences.

Mr. McLoughlin: rose——

Mr. Allen: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) following a precedent in the House in that he speaks in the House before he speaks to the press, unlike Lord Young who this morning is giving a statement on a major merger between British Caledonian and——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have been all through that. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. Clearly, the Official Report will show that what has happened over the past 12 hours was not the fault of Conservative Members. I hope that the people in Scotland will get the chance to read the Official Report.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is doing the House a considerable favour. I understand that he is presently appearing on television and that gives the House a unique opportunity to switch him off.

Mr. McLoughlin: We have had a very long debate and many points have been raised and conceded. However, even after points were conceded, the Opposition forced Divisions on those issues, thus wasting a considerable amount of time.
We must pursue the measure today. Had the Opposition not wasted a considerable amount of time on points of order and this motion to adjourn, had we had a more responsible Opposition, we might have been able to finish the debate in time for Wednesday's business. It is clear from the Adjournment motion that the Opposition intend to continue to filibuster the Bill and keep hon. Members here throughout the day.

Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is now over an hour since the motion was moved. Many hon. Members who have taken part in the debate all night have constituency interests in the Bill. May we have some indication of how long you propose to allow this debate to continue before the debate that was in progress can proceed?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That depends on how many hon. Members seek to catch my eye. But it is not over an hour since the motion was moved: it was moved at 9.25 am.

Mr. Hardy: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It would have been better if the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who mentioned me in his contribution, had waited until I sat down before making his point.
I have been here all night, and, unlike many Conservative Members, I have made a modest contribution. Conservative Members who wonder why so much time has been spent might consider more than the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). They might then understand the reason for our detailed opposition to the Bill. They should realise that, if this country tells the European Community that a wetlands site in East Anglia is of major importance under an international convention to which it has attached a national signature — a convention that


requires observance of its conditions unless there is a dire national emergency — there can be no excuse for frivolous departure from that international commitment.
It is surprising that, after hour upon hour of debate, Conservative Members have decided that the Bill should be amended. The acceptance of our suggestions illustrates the need for that lengthy debate.

Mr. David Shaw: Get back to it.

Mr. Hardy: Surely the hon. Gentleman, whose sole contribution to the debate is to announce that he is a jolly good fellow, can restrain himself for a moment longer.
It is not only right hon. and hon. Members from Scotland who wish to reach Scottish Question Time; I do as well. I have a question tabled. It may surprise Conservative Members to learn that some of us take a genuine interest in conservation—such as my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken throughout the night rather than slumbering on the Government Benches. If an English Member wishes to pursue matters involving timber and forestry, he has to intervene in Scottish Question Time. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden's case is perfectly valid. But let not Conservative Members claim that there has been no legitimate and conservationist argument to advance against a Bill that should take very much longer to debate before it sees the light of day.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I regard the conduct of the Opposition as being as squalid as any I have ever seen ; and I regret to say that I regard that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) as utterly schizophrenic. Having slept soundly in his bed, the hon. Gentleman woke up in the morning to find that the idiots around him had walked straight into a minefield that they themselves had planted. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman went to his Chief Whip and said, "What are we going to do?", and that the Chief Whip said, "I tell you what you must do. Put your hand on your heart and pretend that you are interested in reaching Scottish questions—but make sure that you take 40 minutes to do it."
It is humbug and hypocrisy. The hon. Gentleman is not trying to reach Scottish questions; he is trying to pretend that he wants to. But the insult goes further ——

Mr. Dewar: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman advise his hon. Friends to call my bluff by letting me reach Scottish questions?

10.15. am

Mr. Fairbairn: I know that the hon. Gentleman may think that I am a mug, but if Labour Members think that they can get away with destroying the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill without seeing that they will achieve neither objective, God help them.
The humbug goes even further than that. Let the Scottish people listen to this. The hon. Gentleman says that we are all tired little men and that because we have been up all night we are not fit to talk about the Bill. We are mentally exhausted; we cannot think. But these are the people who will have to consider Scottish questions. So if the hon. Gentleman wants a lot of dead-beat flunkeys—[Interruption.] Furthermore, when they had not been up all night and had only just got out of bed for the previous time we had Scottish questions, they gave the impression to the people of Scotland that the 50 Opposition Members

were zombies. They say that they want devolution, that they want an assembly, and that we in the Conservative Government are not entitled to rule in Scotland because we do not have a mandate — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
If that is so, where are all the braw Highlanders with their claymores? Have they not the strength? Are they not allowed to go to their Whips and say, "By the way, old fellow, I wonder whether you appreciate that if your dog-tired malingerers filibuster all through the night in an attempt, for doctrinal reasons, to defeat an excellent Bill"—which will have considerable effects on Scotland—"we shall lose Scottish business."? I say to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that if the firearms legislation requires amendment, it should be a measure to protect the Labour party from shooting itself in both feet—[Interruption.] I shall come to the nasty bit later.
The hon. Member for Garscadden forgets that all the questions that have been tabled will be answered. Every single one will be answered. There is not a single question to the Secretary of State that will not be answered. But what Labour Members have succeeded in depriving themselves of, for doctrinal reasons and by filibustering and malingering all night, is supplementary questions. I cannot believe, knowing the genius of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, that since the previous lot of questions, Labour Members have done a crash course in intelligent supplementaries. If they have, I should vote for the closure just to see how successful it has been. But I do not have the slightest doubt that in the circumstances those who had run the course would be arrested for fraud.
Let us be clear about the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. It has major and important implications for the port of Perth, which I do not suppose many Opposition Members have heard of. It has major implications for the oil and supply industries at Aberdeen. This is an important Bill which is being deliberately stopped for doctrinal reasons of pique at not being able to nationalise the company, and I dare say that it will be outside the dock. The measure will also create many new jobs.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Would my hon. and learned Friend care to state the reason why Labour Members, whom we must put up with talking a lot of sanctimonious claptrap on unemployment, should oppose a Bill which creates 2,000 or 3,000 new jobs?

Mr. Fairbairn: When it comes to a choice between supporting the tenets of Marxism, which the Labour party pretends to have dropped, and the tenets of employment, which it pretends to promote, the tenets of Marxism always triumph.
The Opposition have no case. Let Scotland understand how lucky it is that there is a United Kingdom Parliament when those who cannot even see a 90 ft trench full of mines before their eyes and fall into it would otherwise be ruhng it. If we ever get devolution ——

Mr. John Home Robertson: We would have time for Scottish business.

Mr. Fairbairn: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is Scottish. There is the line.
If ever we get devolution, I think that the people of Scotland would vote to go to Felixstowe.
This is all humbug. Labour Members have been hoist on the petard of their own doctrinal stupidity. They are


not only blind, but purblind. It shows the bankruptcy of Socialism. For hon. Members who have spoken in the debate to pretend that they oppose the Bill because they are interested in the conservation of butterflies, trees and birds is absolute hypocrisy. Oh ye hypocrites, ye of little faith, you have done your own damage and you have done no harm to Scotland whatever.

Dr. Reid: I shall speak more briefly than the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) because I have a genuine interest in ensuring that the debate is adjourned and that Scottish questions are answered this afternoon.
First, if the hon. and learned Gentleman stayed awake throughout the debate, I congratulate him. He will have extended a compliment to the people of Felixstowe which he did not manage to extend to the people of Scotland as he slept through the last debate we had on Scottish issues.
I think that it would be helpful if we brought a few cool heads into the debate. Therefore, I appeal to the rationale of Conservative Members which, despite all the evidence I must presume to prevail, and ask them to support the Adjournment motion. We are not asking that the debate be truncated—a word used earlier—or abandoned, but adjourned. We appreciate the importance of Felixstowe. Few places in England are nearer to my heart than Felixstowe. It is exceeded only by Dartford and Thurrock. The name of Felixstowe constantly drips from my lips. Therefore, I do not demean its importance to hon. Members.
Extremely important Scottish business is tabled for this afternoon. In the absence of any other explanation why the Government Whips should be pulling hon. Gentlemen into the Chamber to hear a debate on a supposedly private Bill, we are left with no other conclusion than that it is a deliberate ploy to engineer the loss of Scottish questions this afternoon.

Mr. Home Robertson: There is more at stake than just another Scottish Question Time. We understand that the so-called Secretary of State for Scotland, the leader of the minority Administration in the Scottish Office, intended to make a statement later today introducing a White Paper on Scottish housing, which is likely to have far-reaching effects and implications for tenants the length and breadth of Scotland by forcing up rents and further reducing the availability of rental housing. In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) is to introduce an Adjournment debate tomorrow on the crisis in the Scottish penal system. The Government are trying to sabotage more than Scottish Question Time.

Dr. Reid: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing my point. Two other issues which are of vital importance to Scottish people will not be taken today.
Of course, it is only once a month that the Lord Lieutenant, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) faces Scottish questions in the House. It is almost a state visit to Scotland on such occasions. There are a number of issues. Quite frankly, the Government are frightened to answer questions. I shall mention only one matter, and that is the poll tax. It is becoming plain that the poll tax will not only affect every individual in Scotland

but will be twice the amount— about £500 per head— that the Government have been predicting. I do not wish to dwell on it, but it is an important point and we wish to raise it this afternoon.
Tangential to that matter is another scandal regarding the poll tax. It would have been raised had the Government not tried to talk it out. Every minister, priest, nun and religious institution in Scotland will have withdrawn from them the 100 per cent. rates rebate or discount that they presently enjoy. In that sense, we should congratulate the Government on their role in the ecumenical movement. Almost singlehandedly, through the poll tax, they have managed to unite Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus and Muslims, and that will cost British churches about £10 million a year.
I said that my remarks would be brief. I intend to say a little more. As I said, in the absence of a genuine attempt to support the adjournment of the debate, and allow further discussion, the only conclusion that Opposition Members, my constituents and the people of Scotland can draw is that the Government are so frightened to face up to their lack of responsibility in Scotland that they are not even prepared to go to the Dispatch Box once a month and answer questions on behalf of a country that they purport to represent.

Mr. Bill Walker: It will come as no surprise to the House to hear that I was expecting that we would deal with Scottish business today. I imagine that there is something about the way in which I am dressed that would give that impression. I listened to the speech made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). It was interesting to note how the Labour party can change its views, attitudes and arguments in relation to adjournments. It was proposed to adjourn the Scottish Development Agency debate in the early hours of the morning. It was said that that was hideous and odious. Now, of course, because this Bill——

Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that we opposed that adjournment so that we could have a debate on Scottish issues? We support this adjournment so that we may have a debate on Scottish issues this afternoon. There is no inconsistency in that.

Mr. Walker: There is an inconsistency. The hon. Gentleman is standing his argument on his head. He cannot have it both ways. However the hon. Gentleman views the matter, the motion to adjourn the Scottish Development Agency debate gave an opportunity to have a debate in prime time at a later date. That was opportune. But Opposition Members in turn objected to the adjournment. You will recollect that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House will recollect that during the debate on the Scottish Development Agency, the subjects of Ford in Dundee and the private hospital to be built in Clydebank were discussed. Both projects would create jobs. It is rather interesting that Opposition Members were not prepared to endorse either of them—first, because of trade union disputes and, secondly, because of their doctrinaire attitudes.

Mr. John McAllion: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that Opposition Members in any way failed to support the attraction of inward investment into Dundee through the Ford plant. That has been consistently supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and me.

Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have been prudent and careful in deliberately restraining from commenting on the Ford plant. I understand the ghastly situation in which the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) found themselves. The trade unions, who are their paymasters and supporters, were not behaving properly. Consequently, we had uncertainty. That is the best description that I can give the hon. Gentleman. In the light of the television programme about Dundee last week, one can understand why hon. Members do not want to talk too much about the matter. Sadly, if the city regains its previous image—which one hoped was disappearing — very few employers will want to come to Dundee. I would find that terribly distressing, as many of my constituents commute to Dundee.
The loss of Scottish questions today, which looks likely, means that those of us who wish to question Ministers are being denied the opportunity to do so. We are being denied the opportunity because throughout the night, Opposition Members have kept up what can at best be described as a protracted debate. Others, less charitably, would describe it as a filibuster. Anyone who reads the report of our proceedings will realise that this has been a deliberate attempt to prevent the Bill's passage through the House.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Would not my hon. Friend agree that, given the number of Scottish Opposition Members'—of which they constantly remind us—had they bothered to turn up for the debate on the Bill they could have had a preponderant influence on the Opposition and might indeed have managed to get the business done with sufficient despatch to save the Scottish business today?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend has focused clearly on the problem that the Labour party faces. The Scottish members of the party form its largest single element. Unfortunately, however, Scottish Labour Members seem to have no influence whatever on the conduct of business in this place. They are constantly shooting themselves in both feet, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) said. It is clear that the loss of Scottish business today is the direct result of the Labour party's Scottish representatives being unable to persuade their colleagues of the importance of Scottish business to them and to the rest of the House.

Mr. Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend accept that the motive that led Scottish Labour Members to bed was that Felixstowe is in England and so did not matter? Regardless of what happens elsewhere in the United Kingdom their attitude is that provided that business relates to Scotland they must have time to discuss it.

Mr. Walker: My hon. and learned Friend is perfectly right. There is no doubt that one constantly hears Opposition Members who represent Scottish constituencies girning and greeting about lack of time. Yet they are unable to organise their own troops to conduct a meaningful debate on a very important Bill. Instead, they ensure that the Bill makes little progress. They do so because it is clear that the Bill is important. It will create jobs, it will create new attitudes and it will improve existing attitudes in the very fine port of Felixstowe. The danger, as the Opposition see it, is that the Bill will make

Felixstowe even more successful and will show the way for the other United Kingdom ports. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross said, we in Scotland will be unable to ignore the effect that Felixstowe will have after the Bill is passed. It will he vital to North sea oil operations and to the factories and production units in Scotland which export the great majority of their goods. A good example is whisky.
The people of Scotland should understand that we are in this position today because of the incompetence of Scottish Labour Members.

Mr. John Garrett: The tenor of the debate during the past hour has been rather excitable. It is time for reflection. I have been here all night ; I have followed every amendment ; I have spoken briefly on some of them; and I have tried to express a deeply felt concern about the environment, which is threatened by the Bill. The environment and ecology are major issues in East Anglia, as the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) will know from his mailbag, as I do from mine. It was my duty to represent the protests about the damage that will be caused to a major site of special scientific interest in East Anglia, because no Conservative Member has done so.
It is remarkable how many of our amendments have been accepted by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), whom it is proper to call the sponsor's surrogate, since in my hearing he called the Bill "Gummers's Bill". The fact that he accepted many of our key amendments shows the value of our debate. We needed several hours on each group of amendments to convince him to convince the promoters of the Bill of the need to accept the amendments.
We have debated four of the 10 groups of amendments, and we now have time to pause and reflect. There are many more important amendments: on explosives in a nature reserve—I ask you; on access; on the planning process; on the effects of construction; on the use of Trimley marshes; on the innovative concept of changing arable land into a nature reserve, which has not been done before; and on future safeguards for the dock development. Those amendments deserve many more hours of consideration; we should not abandon the debate, but we should adjourn it to another day.

Mr. Forth: It may surprise the House to know that I share many of the views expressed by Labour Members. I had been looking forward with great anticipation to Scottish questions. I and many of my hon. Friends remember the events during last Scottish questions when there was a shambles on the Opposition Benches and a triumph on the Government Benches, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Ministers came to the House and gave a full account of their stewardship in Scotland and displayed to the people of Scotland the complete ineptitude of the Opposition.
Not only was that bad for the Opposition on that occasion; Conservative Members are now being denied a repetition — something to which I have been looking forward for some time. Many of my hon. Friends have tabled Scottish questions — so interested are we in matters north of the border, and so eager are we to see my right hon. Friend and his colleagues displaying yet again how well matters are going north of the border.
Nevertheless, some hon. Members from south of the border are concerned about how well the Scots are doing and how generous the Government are being to the Member. That is one reason why we wanted to question my right hon. and learned Friend — although I know that he would have provided perfectly good answers to the questions.
I wish to explain to the House why Scottish questions are in jeopardy. We have still to deal with the Bill in detail, as many Labour Members have said. The House should be aware that during the night Opposition speeches lasted for as long as 32 minutes, one hour and five minutes, 43 minutes, 72 minutes and so on. I have a complete list of them. The great bulk of this parliamentary day has been taken up by Opposition Members—and mainly English Members.
It is now obvious to the House that Scottish Labour Members, having slept through the night, have come to the House only to be appalled to find that their English colleagues have detained the House for so long that Scottish questions are in danger. I feel sorry for Opposition Members, because they will have to sort this out for themselves. I have no doubt that the Labour Chief Whip is at this moment trying to calm some of his colleagues who are probably grasping each other by the throat. However, that is not a concern of Conservative Members——

Mr. Fairbairn: Is it not even more painful for Scottish Labour Members to know not only that they will lose their business, but that they were so stupid as not to have realised that that was inevitable?

Mr. Forth: Indeed, that is becoming obvious. There was shock on the faces of Opposition Members as they trickled into the Chamber, having had a night's sleep. The way in which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has moved this unfortunate Adjournment motion, interrupting the business of the House and our detailed consideration of the Bill, shows that the tragedy is that Opposition Members cannot make up their minds whether they want to destroy an excellent private Bill or whether they want to go through a further shambles at Scottish questions and submit themselves to humiliation. That is why it is quite obvious to us——

Mr. John Maxton: The hon. Gentleman referred to a shambles on the Opposition Benches and the way that the Scottish people have listened to the Secretary of State on his stewardship. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in the many local government by-elections since June, because of the vacancies created by former Labour councillors entering this House, in by-election after by-election the Tory party has come fourth? Is it not true that the only reason that it has come even fourth is that the Green party and the Communist party did not put up candidates?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. We must not stray from the comparatively narrow procedural motion before the House.

Mr. Forth: Indeed not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the truth is that the hon. Member for Garscadden scurried out of the Chamber to speak to the press a short time ago because the Labour party received such an appallingly bad

press following the last Scottish questions. He had to ensure that he salvaged something for the next Scottish questions. There is fear on the faces of Opposition Members as they contemplate what happened during last Scottish questions, and that gives the lie——

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) had to come to the Chamber to move the Adjournment of the debate shows that the Opposition are divided? Does it not show that Scottish Members cannot persuade their other colleagues to reduce their opposition to such a worthwhile Bill?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend, as ever, puts his finger on the problem. The Opposition are hoist by their own petard. They cannot decide whether to filibuster the Bill or to have Scottish Questions. However, that is their problem, not ours.
We know that the main business of the House today—this is why we shall vote against the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Garscadden — is to complete our consideration of the Bill and dispatch that business. If other business has to fail, the country and the Scots people will know that the reason for that failure lies at the Labour party's door alone.

Mr. James Wallace: I start with the confession that during the night I showed as much interest in the Bill as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). However, I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) would welcome that non-intervention as a contribution to the expedition of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Garscadden said that today's business would be worthwhile and of importance. That is perfectly clear. Only once every four weeks do we have Scottish questions and the opportunity to question Scottish Office Ministers on a range of subjects. The business consisted of a statement on housing in Scotland and a debate on transport on the very day that we expect an announcement on the proposed merger between British Caledonian and British Airways. Indeed, I think that I am right in saying that there was also the formal presentation of the hon. Member for Garscadden's Bill for Scottish home rule.
The Labour Front Bench appears to have a slow learning curve. On at least one occasion during debates on the Bill which abolished the GLC in the previous Parliament, the Labour party tried to take business through the night and panicked at about nine o'clock when it found that it had gone too far. The Government then stepped in to complete the business earlier than would have otherwise been the case.
That has happened again today. We all know a parliamentary filibuster when we see one. Last night, points of order were taken at considerable length, encouraged by the Labour Front Bench. I seem to recall that they were about trying to obtain a statement from the Department of Trade and Industry before a statement was made to the press. If we continue to sit this morning, and if the horse has not yet bolted, that might still be possible.
The point is that the Labour party's antics have taken us through the night and it has scored an own goal.

Mr. Hind: I, like the hon. Gentleman, have tabled a question for Scottish Question Time that I should like


answered. Does he agree that if this motion had not been proposed, the one and a half hours that have been wasted on it could have been used to debate the Bill and make it more likely that we would have reached Scottish questions?

Mr. Wallace: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I regret taking an intervention about such an obvious point that, in itself, has taken up time.
The hon. Member for Garscadden has now proposed a parliamentary lifeboat to save the Labour party's face. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said that the Government are now trying to protect Scottish Office Ministers. With respect, if one looks at the list of speakers during the night, there were precious few Conservative Members. Most of them came from the Labour Benches.
This is the second occasion in the few weeks since the summer recess that the Labour party's shambolic tactics have lost us an opportunity to challenge the Scottish Office. The Labour party's shambolic tactics on the Scottish Development Agency Bill meant that we lost a debate on the Scottish economy which the Secretary of State for Scotland would have had to answer.

Mr. Maxton: If the Labour party lost an important debate on the Thursday evening, why did the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) stand up in the House of Commons at 2 o'clock, when the motion on the Adjournment of the House was being debated, to oppose it? He said that he wanted the debate to continue throughout the night. We would have completed the Bill if it had not been for the idiotic tactics of Government Whips.

Mr. Wallace: I well remember the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). He was scathing about the Labour party's tactics, which lost us a debate. I was present and I clearly remember my hon. Friend's speech. We lost a debate on the Scottish economy which would have brought the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Dispatch Box. [Interruption.] — There are many issues on the Scottish economy which go beyond the Scottish Development Agency. That is the point.
We are in danger of losing important Scottish business again today. The people of Scotland will know that it is the Labour party's shambolic tactics that are denying us the opportunity to challenge the Scottish Office.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 5.

Division No. 62]
[10.50 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)


Adley, Robert
Barron, Kevin


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Allason, Rupert
Battle, John


Alton, David
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Anderson, Donald
Bell, Stuart


Arbuthnot, James
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Benyon, W.


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ashby, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Ashdown, Paddy
Blair, Tony


Atkinson, David
Boateng, Paul


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowis, John





Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Brazier, Julian
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bright, Graham
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Browne, John (Winchester)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grist, Ian


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grocott, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Buckley, George
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hannam, John


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Harman, Ms Harriet


Canavan, Dennis
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayward, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Henderson, Douglas


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Holt, Richard


Clay, Bob
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Hood, James


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Curry, David
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Darling, Alastair
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Irvine, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dewar, Donald
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Dicks, Terry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dixon, Don
Key, Robert


Dobson, Frank
King, Roger (B'ham N'thlield)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Douglas, Dick
Kirkwood, Archy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Duffy, A. E. P.
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Knox, David


Durant, Tony
Lambie, David


Eastham, Ken
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Ian


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Lewis, Terry


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lightbown, David


Fallon, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Farr, Sir John
Livsey, Richard


Faulds, Andrew
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fearn, Ronald
Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Fisher, Mark
Lord, Michael


Flynn, Paul
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McAllion, John


Foulkes, George
McCrindle, Robert


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McFall, John


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacGregor, John


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gale, Roger
McKelvey, William


Gardiner, George
Maclean, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McLeish, Henry


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
McNamara, Kevin






Major, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Malins, Humfrey
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Mans, Keith
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Marek, Dr John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marland, Paul
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Shersby, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sims, Roger


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Meale, Alan
Speed, Keith


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Speller, Tony


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miscampbell, Norman
Steinberg, Gerald


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stern, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Stevens, Lewis


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Morgan, Rhodri
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Straw, Jack


Moss, Malcolm
Sumberg, David


Moynihan, Hon C.
Summerson, Hugo


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'tord)


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Newton, Tony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


O'Brien, William
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Paice, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patchett, Terry
Thorne, Neil


Patnick, Irvine
Thornton, Malcolm


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tracey, Richard


Pendry, Tom
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pike, Peter
Viggers, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Portillo, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Redwood, John
Wallace, James


Reid, John
Waller, Gary


Renton, Tim
Walley, Ms Joan


Rhodes James, Robert
Ward, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Warren, Kenneth


Riddick, Graham
Wheeler, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Robertson, George
Wiggin, Jerry


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wilkinson, John


Rogers, Allan
Wilshire, David


Rooker, Jeff
Wilson, Brian


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Winterton, Nicholas


Rowe, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Rowlands, Ted
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Richard



Sackville, Hon Tom
Tellers for the Ayes:


Salmond, Alex
Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Eric Forth.


Sayeed, Jonathan



Shaw, David (Dover)





NOES


Dalyell, Tarn



Hardy, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Ian McCartney.


Skinner, Dennis



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.

The House divided: Ayes, 119, Noes, 205.

Division No. 63]
[11.00 am


AYES


Allen, Graham
Anderson, Donald


Alton, David
Armstrong, Ms Hilary





Ashdown, Paddy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Loyden, Eddie


Battle, John
McAllion, John


Bell, Stuart
McCartney, Ian


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McFall, John


Blair, Tony
McKelvey, William


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
McLeish, Henry


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McNamara, Kevin


Buchan, Norman
Madden, Max


Buckley, George
Marek, Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Canavan, Dennis
Martlew, Eric


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Maxton, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clay, Bob
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Clelland, David
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Corbett, Robin
Morgan, Rhodri


Cousins, Jim
Morley, Elliott


Dalyell, Tam
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Darling, Alastair
Murphy, Paul


Dewar, Donald
O'Brien, William


Dixon, Don
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dobson, Frank
Patchett, Terry


Douglas, Dick
Pendry, Tom


Duffy, A. E. P.
Pike, Peter


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Prescott, John


Eastham, Ken
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Reid, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Robertson, George


Faulds, Andrew
Rogers, Allan


Fearn, Ronald
Rooker, Jeff


Fisher, Mark
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Flynn, Paul
Rowlands, Ted


Foster, Derek
Salmond, Alex


Foulkes, George
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Skinner, Dennis


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Grocott, Bruce
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hardy, Peter
Snape, Peter


Harman, Ms Harriet
Steinberg, Gerald


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Straw, Jack


Henderson, Douglas
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hinchliffe, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Home Robertson, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Hood, James
Wall, Pat


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Wallace, James


Hoyle, Doug
Walley, Ms Joan


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wareing, Robert N.


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Wilson, Brian


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kirkwood, Archy



Lambie, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lamond, James
Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Frank Cook.


Lewis, Terry



Livsey, Richard





NOES


Adley, Robert
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Alexander, Richard
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arbuthnot, James
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Ashby, David
Brooke, Hon Peter


Atkinson, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Buck, Sir Antony


Batiste, Spencer
Burt, Alistair


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Butler, Chris


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Benyon, W.
Carrington, Matthew


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Boswell, Tim
Chapman, Sydney


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bowis, John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)






Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
MacGregor, John


Colvin, Michael
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Maclean, David


Cormack, Patrick
McLoughlin, Patrick


Couchman, James
Major, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
Malins, Humfrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mans, Keith


Curry, David
Marland, Paul


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Day, Stephen
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Devlin, Tim
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Dickens, Geoffrey
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dicks, Terry
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dorrell, Stephen
Monro, Sir Hector


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Dunn, Bob
Moore, Rt Hon John


Durant, Tony
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Eggar, Tim
Moss, Malcolm


Emery, Sir Peter
Moynihan, Hon C.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Neale, Gerrard


Fallon, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Farr, Sir John
Neubert, Michael


Favell, Tony
Newton, Tony


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Onslow, Cranley


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Paice, James


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Patnick, Irvine


Fox, Sir Marcus
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Freeman, Roger
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


French, Douglas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gale, Roger
Portillo, Michael


Gardiner, George
Redwood, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Renton, Tim


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Rhodes James, Robert


Gower, Sir Raymond
Riddick, Graham


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Greenway. John (Rydale)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Rowe, Andrew


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Ryder, Richard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hampson, Dr Keith
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hannam, John
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Harris, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hayward, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hind, Kenneth
Shersby, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Sims, Roger


Holt, Richard
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hordern, Sir Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Howard, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Speed, Keith


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Speller, Tony


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Stern, Michael


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Stevens, Lewis


Irvine, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jackson, Robert
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Jessel, Toby
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sumberg, David


Key, Robert
Summerson, Hugo


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knapman, Roger
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knox, David
Thome, Neil


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Thornton, Malcolm


Lang, Ian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Tracey, Richard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lightbown, David
Viggers, Peter


Lilley, Peter
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Lord, Michael
Waller, Gary


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Ward, John


McCrindle, Robert
Warren, Kenneth





Wheeler, John
Wood, Timothy


Whitney, Ray
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Miss Ann



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilkinson, John
Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Eric Forth.


Wilshire, David



Winterton, Nicholas

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Tony Blair: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will be aware that last night the Opposition demanded a statement from the Department of Trade and Industry on the proposed British Caledonian-British Airways merger. At 9 o'clock this morning that request was renewed. At the very time when it was refused in the House, a press conference was held by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, details of the merger were given, questions were answered and the report was put in the House of Commons. It is outrageous that the House has been denied an opportunity to respond to this report.
Conservative Members may not care about the interests of consumers, the interest of employees or competition policy. The Opposition do care about those things. This is an important matter of public interest and the House has been treated with contempt. We must have a statement today from the Department of Trade and Industry.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall deal first with this point of order. I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that on a number of occasions during the night Mr. Speaker and other occupants of the Chair dealt with this matter. Mr. Speaker dealt with it as recently as two hours ago, when he made it very clear that it was not a matter for the Chair and that there was nothing that he could do to assist the hon. Gentleman. I can add nothing to what Mr. Speaker said on that occasion. I will, of course, take further points of order. However, I want to remind the House that a moment ago the House agreed that the debate on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill should continue. It is my job to ensure that the wishes of the House are carried out. I therefore hope that those hon. Members who are rising on points of order will reflect on what I have said and, if they believe that they must persist, I urge them to be extremely brief.

Mr. Fairbairn: Can you assist me on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker? In the previous two Divisions, Labour Front Bench spoksmen voted in both Lobbies. Since I understand that Labour Members are in a state of warfare, perhaps the House could adjourn for five minutes to allow Labour Members to meet in separate rooms—[interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The voting habits of hon. Members have nothing to do with me, thank goodness.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I want to raise a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker and particularly I want to consider the British Caledonian and British Airways merger. This is a very important issue and I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree, although I accept that you said that it was not a matter for the Chair. Nevertheless, the future of the air transport industry, and the merger's effects on jobs and on air fares are matters which should be debated as soon as possible.


You were quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to pass comment on my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) who explained that a press statement had been issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Although this is not a matter for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appeal to the Leader of the House to come to the Dispatch Box as soon as possible and make a statement. This is a very important and vital British industry, and the merger will have an effect on international trade.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not really a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and I am sure that he will seek other opportunities which are in order to raise the matter that he seeks to ventilate.

Mr. Tim Yeo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many Conservative Members have been up all night and have voted in all of the Divisions. They are very anxious to make progress with the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. One of the reasons why we are anxious to make progress is, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) explained that we want to get on with Scottish questions and other Scottish business this afternoon so that we can hear just how successful our Ministers are being in Scotland—[Interruption.] In those circumstances, is it in order for the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to come to the House—and he has not been here for the past 15 hours—and raise a point of order upon which Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker have already ruled twice in the past two hours, especially when it has been the practice of both Conservative and Labour Governments not to make statements on Monopolies and Mergers Commission reports?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: None of the points that have been raised so far are points of order. I am gaining the strong impression that we are wasting time that should be devoted to the debate. The House has recently decided that the debate on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill should continue.

Mr. Malcom Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that this is a genuine point of order.

Mr. Bruce: I accept that you and Mr. Speaker have already ruled on this issue. However, I want to stress that on many occasions Mr. Speaker has said that he does not approve of the way in which the Government refuse to make statements. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made a statement to the press that the merger should go ahead, and that totally flies in the face of the stated Government policy to promote competition. We are entitled to have a statement in the House. As the Leader of the House is present, will he consider doing the House the courtesy of saying when a statement will be made to the House so that business can proceed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, that is not a matter for the Chair. I apeal once more to the House: we really should get on with the debate. I hope that the next point of order will be genuine.

Mr. McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that it is still entirely possible for a statement to be made; that notice must be given to Mr. Speaker's Office before 12 o'clock ; and that any action taken before that would pre-empt any decision, that might be made?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is correct.

Mr. Blair: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The demand has been made through the usual channels a number of times. The Leader of the House is here now. Why does he not tell us whether we can have a statement? Must a statement on such an important matter be made outside and not inside the House? If so, that is wholly wrong.

Mr. Roger King: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The statement about the proposed merger between British Airways and British Caledonian is dated Wednesday 12 November, but we are still on Tuesday 11 November. How can we discuss something that is in the future?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, that is not a point of order for me.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On an entirely different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know of the concern of the Chair to protect Back-Bench Members. Four items of important Scottish business were to be debated today, and 67 out of 72 Scottish Members are Back Benchers. Can you explain, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how it is possible for the usual channels, which normally involve the Front-Benchers of both major parties, to bring us to an impasse in which four matters of vital importance to the Scottish people are in danger of being lost?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has reinforced the point that I have been trying to make for some time—that we should get on with the debate.

Clause 10

INCORPORATION OF PROVISIONS OF ACTS OF 1956, 1963, 1968, 1979 AND 1981

Dr. Marek: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 10, line 21, at end insert—
'(dd) section 24 of the Act of 1956 shall have effect as if after "Council" there were inserted "and the Regional Officer responsible for the County of Suffolk of the Nature Conservancy Council".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 22, in page 10, line 28, at end insert
`and with the chief executive of Suffolk Coastal District Council'.

Dr. Marek: Although I am speaking for myself and cannot commit any of my hon. Friends—[Interruption.]—let me say first that the Opposition look at the Bill——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is too much sedentary conversation. I want to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Dr. Marek: We shall try to oppose the Bill where we think that it should be opposed, and we shall try to improve it where we think that it should be improved. We feel that that must come first, because it is the business that we are discussing today.
We have a Bill before us. We are not responsible for the management of Government business; it is not up to us to propose Adjournment motions. We have not the power, because we have no majority. It is the Government's responsibility whether or not we proceed.
I intend to proceed. I intend to try to improve the Bill through these amendments. This must be absolutely clear: we do not want misconceptions to arise from the antics of some Conservative Members which might make the public believe that we want to talk out our own business this afternoon. Of course we do not. We want to keep our business this afternoon.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are important. People in Felixstowe, Harwich and East Anglia will be extremely interested in how we proceed. The amendments deal with disturbance to birds and bird life. Many people are members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and an even larger number are desperately worried about the plight of birds and bird life in the United Kingdom. Amendment No. 21 seeks to give the Nature Conservancy Council a little scope—[Interruption.]

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I suggest that my hon. Friend remains silent until he feels that the House can hear him?

Dr. Marek: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion. There is much noise, coming from many Conservative Members. The Conservative Front Bench seems to be holding a tripartite conversation. However, things are quietening down and I can continue. At least, I hope that hon. Members on Opposition Benches will be able to hear me.
I do not want to be too long because I have been here throughout the night. I have noticed that there has been a temptation on Conservative Benches to try to move closure motions whenever possible. I have no reason to believe that the Government or the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who is in charge of the Bill, will do any different on this occasion. I suspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow the debate to continue for about two hours, after which a closure motion will be moved. As has happened before, although plenty of points need to be made in this important debate, they will go by the board. We shall be forced into a closure and the debate will be curtailed.
It is a great pity when the Government, with a majority of over 100, cannot organise their business so that proper consideration could be given to previous amendments or to the ones that we are now debating, amendments Nos. 21 and 22. I should have thought that if the Government party was keen on getting the best legislation through the House, as are we in the Opposition, without a shadow of doubt, it would listen to all the arguments and not be keen to move closure motions as soon as possible.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend says that it is the Government party that moves closure motions, but it is obvious it is more than the Government party—it is the Government. It is the Tory Government in receipt of £30,000 a year fom P and O who have hastened the legislation through to such an extent. We have even seen the Prime Minister taking the unusual step of voting on what we are told is private legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has given his preamble. I hope that he will resist the temptation that has been placed before him by his own Front Bench.

Dr. Marek: I am sure that hon. Members heard what my hon. Friend said. I shall leave it at that, as you suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I now refer to amendment No. 21. Section 24 of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1956 deals with the use of explosives. It might be useful to read it out. The Act is inadequate in many ways, and section 24 demonstrates that. It states:
Before any explosive substance is used in exercise of the powers of this Act the Company shall give at least seven days' notice in writing marked "Urgent" (which shall be served by posting by registered post) of the intention to use an explosive substance addressed to the engineer and surveyor of the Felixstowe Urban District Council.
That is all that the section says. Hon. Members will have noticed that there is nothing to stop the company using explosives at any time if it wishes. All that it must do is give at least seven days' notice and mark the letter or document "Urgent". The difficulty is that explosives frighten birds. People who have been to the Fagbury marshes tell me that there are thousands of birds there and that if a shotgun is fired at the wrong time, those birds will fly up.

Mr. McCartney: May I remind my hon. Friend of the Brent geese, which migrates from the USSR to winter in the United Kingdom? They are particularly vulnerable on marshland to cold weather. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides for the Secretary of State to take action on shotguns. If he can take action on shotguns, what would be the position on explosives? One can only hazard the guess that the thousands of birds in a flock would be frightened by explosives and that explosives would, therefore, greatly endanger the migratory pattern of the geese.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I thought that he would anticipate me and make my point, but he made the slightly different point about dangers to migrating birds and migrations.) take his advice on that because he knows more on this subject than I do. I am a mere amateur at bird-watching. My point is slightly different but, I hope, equally valid.
We accept that loud noises disturb birds and that an explosion in midwinter will darken the sky with tens of thousands of birds. Clearly, they will expend much energy. I am told on good authority that in the depths of winter birds do not have enough energy to be continually, or even irregularly, frightened by loud noises. They must spend their time on the mud banks seeking food simply to get enough energy to stay alive. If birds are frightened into the sky, first, they expend energy and, secondly, they are not looking for the food that they need to stay alive.
There are rules against firing shotguns in certain areas and I understand that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides for cold weather orders. Therefore, it is not a question of the House debating something which is absolutely new or that nobody has thought about; such provisions already exist and the danger has been recognised and appreciated by experts and ornithologists. All my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and I are seeking to do is to ensure that the spirit of the cold weather orders is carried into this Bill in


relation to the use of explosives. Clearly, it would be anomalous if the company were allowed to use explosives either without any control or with only seven days' notice, while people who shoot — there are plenty who shoot and use shotguns in that area—are rightly barred from doing so because of the cold weather orders.
The amendment does not spell out the matter precisely or make it absolutely clear. It inserts into clause 10:
'(dd) section 24 of the Act of 1956 shall have effect as if after "Council" there were inserted "and the Regional Officer responsible for the County of Suffolk of the Nature Conservancy Council".'.
I shall not bore the House by reading the Bill ; hon. Members can read it and the amendments. If the amendment is accepted, explosives could be used, but only when they do not harm feeding birds, waders and the Brent geese about which my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is rightly concerned.
Amendment No. 22 is slightly different. I support it and hope that it will be accepted, but I confess that I am not completely happy with it. It states:
in page 10, line 28, at end insert 'and with the chief executive of Suffolk Coastal District Council"'.
Section 39 of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1956 deals with the correction of errors in deposited plans and books of reference. In addition to referring to the county of East Suffolk, section 39 of the 1956 Act requires duly authorised certificates recording details of the error in question to be deposited with
every clerk of a local authority and chairman of a parish council or parish meeting with whom a copy of the deposited plans has been deposited in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Houses of Parliament or who has the custody of any such copy so deposited".
The local district council fits the description, but, subject to any comments that will be made by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, it does not include the Suffolk Coastal district council. The amendment simply seeks to correct the problem so that all local authorities are involved and none is left out. The Suffolk Coastal district authority is one of the two principal authorities in the region.
Chief executives are mentioned in the amendment. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish can advise me on the matter. I would prefer the amendment to refer to the chief executive acting on the advice of his council, not in a personal capacity. Most chief executives act on the advice of their district councils, but it seems——

Mr. McCartney: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Marek: I shall finish the sentence and then I shall give way.
The way the amendment is worded, it could mean the chief executive acting of his or her own volition. If so, that is a slight defect of the amendment, but nevertheless I support it.

Mr. McCartney: I shall try to help my hon. Friend. I am a recent member of a local authority. It may be that the provision has not caused many difficulties. In most instances, local authority standing orders specifically designate what role a chief executive will perform under the instruction of a committee or council and which roles will be delegated to him. I am absolutely sure that the district council concerned, having considered the issues

involved, pursuant to the standing orders, will decide whether a power is delegated to him personally or through the appropriate committee.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that elucidation. My hesitation was based on existing practice. In regard to electoral registration, the chief executive of any council acts as an agent of the Home Office. In other matters, perhaps——

Mr. McCartney: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Marek: I shall finish my remarks and then perhaps my hon. Friend can correct me.
In respect of other matters, the chief executives attending district council planning committees would clearly be acting as agents of such committees.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend has it slightly wrong. At district council level, the electoral registration officer acts on instructions from the district council's policy committee and is not responsible to the Home Office. He can, of course, refer matters to the Home Office for advice.

Dr. Marek: I bow to my hon. Friend's superior knowledge. I admit that I am not sure about the position of a chief executive when acting as a returning officer in the context of electoral registration. If my hon. Friend says that the drafting of the amendment is satisfactory to him, it is certainly satisfactory to me. As I believe in democracy——

Mr. McCartney: The amendment is not entirely satisfactory.

Dr. Marek: I shall be happy to give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. McCartney: The difficulty to which my hon. Friend is drawing attention may not be as great as he suggests, but that does not mean that I go along completely with the amendment.

Dr. Marek: Without any further delving into the precise implications of the wording of the amendment, I am content to say that I am quite happy with it, especially after the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Loyden: Perhaps my hon. Friend will care to probe the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) about how much underwater explosive will be used and the ecological consequences of the use of it. I think that my hon. Friend is right about the issue of Home Office intervention. If we are being asked to make a decision on these matters, we should know whether responsibility rests with the Home Office. My understanding is that it does. I invite my hon. Friend to probe the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds on these issues.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Lloyd) for raising an important question, which I cannot answer definitely. I would hope that any company would have expertise in the use of explosives and would know the consequences of any discharge of them. I hope that the Minister listened to my hon. Friend's question and will answer it. It is an important issue and the House will want an assurance.
Amendment No. 21 takes up the important issue of the scaring of birds in deep midwinter, thus making life extremely difficult for them. If they are caused to fly in the depths of winter they will expend a considerable amount


of energy, and when flying, they will not be able to look for food. That is critical. In the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. there are safeguards against the use of shotguns. The amendment seeks to widen the scope of that Act to bring within its terms the use of explosives in the context of the Bill. I commend the two amendments to the House.

Mr. McCartney: I address myself to the use of explosives and the effects of discharges of them on communities close to the proposed development. I represent a Lancashire coalfield constituency with one of the largest areas of opencast mining activity in the country. The community which I represent is involved in the problems that are caused by explosives in industrial areas close to built-up areas in which people live and work. I wish to ask the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) a number of questions and I hope that he will be able to satisfy me on these matters. If he can, he will perhaps be able to support the amendments.
11.45 am
First, has the company sponsoring the Bill published proposals to deal with expected noise levels and, indeed, the duration of the noise, which is equally important? Very often, it is the duration of noise that creates the largest environmental difficulties for communities close to industrial establishments. We can all deal with the use of explosive substances on a one-off basis from time to time, but their daily use from Monday to Saturday is a different matter. The company should address itself to that difficult and detailed problem. What proposals has it placed before the district or county council in regard to the use of explosive substances and the noise that that creates?
We also need to know the hours of work on the site. That is especially relevant to the area in which the development is to take place, because of its proximity to areas of international importance for wildlife. It is essential to have some information about the likely hours of work and their effect on wildlife and the local community. Has the company, at any stage during the long proceedings on the Bill, consulted the local authorities or local community and environmental groups on the matter?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I gather that the hon. Gentleman wants to know about hours of work on the site because of the possible effect on wildlife. I shall make it my business to get the answer to his question. However, may I ask him what are the hours of work of the wildlife that he is worried about disturbing?

Mr. McCartney: I am worried about hours of work in relation to the use of explosive substances. That is very important in terms of the level and duration of noise, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has already explained how noise affects migrating birds.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I put it to my hon. Friend that any undertakings given by the company are of no consequence. In large construction contracts, the main contractors subcontract and they invariably find it impossible to enforce conditions imposed upon them by the planning authorities. Whatever conditions the main contractor gives, the chances are that there will be default on the main contract.

Mr. McCartney: Tragically, that is my experience, too, in my present local community and in other communities in which I have lived. However, having said that, I am

prepared to give the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds the benefit of the doubt, at least during the debate, to allow him to set out proposals. We could then discuss whether those proposals were adequate and what steps the local authority could take to ensure that they were implemented. I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's proposals on these matters.
For local residents, another concern in relation to the use of explosive substances is structural damage, which should be monitored. Local communities often find themselves on the losing end. They give companies the benefit of the doubt, allowing them to use explosive substances, and they subsequently find that their properties suffer structural damage, cracked windows, dust and so on. What arrangements have the promoters made to monitor properties near the site for possible structural damage? Where it occurs, what action will they take to remedy the problem, either by carrying out repairs or by granting compensation to the owners of properties that have been damaged?
In the early hours of the morning, we had a lengthy debate on whether the Bill should include a money resolution to deal with its consequences for local authorities. Our amendment tries to tidy up the position and to make the local authority the body responsible for monitoring the use and effects of explosive substances. What resources will be made available to the district council, whose environmental health officers will have to monitor the regulations to ensure that they are adequately carried out and, where they are not, that action is taken? Capital expenditure will be involved, because the local authority will have to provide the equipment necessary to monitor noise and dust. I should welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds on any discussions that have taken place between the district council and the company.
On the storage of explosives, because of vandalism and for other reasons, problems have arisen in my constituency where companies have stored explosives in such a way that they have fallen into the wrong hands or are used wrongly on site. Has a planning application been made to the district council in relation to the storage of explosives on site or near to the site?

Mr. David Shaw: I am especially interested in the hon. Gentleman's point about the security of explosives. He said that he had experience of this in his constituency. Will he describe what happened?

Mr. McCartney: One problem occurred, not with a private company, but in a British Rail establishment in my area. It has happened in other areas. In foggy conditions caps are placed on the line. Young children have taken them, the caps have exploded and the children have been injured. At a property close to where I live, vandals took some explosive substances which could have caused great damage. This is not a spurious point. I am worried not only about the safety of persons on site but about the possibility of vandalism or other reckless action. I hope that hon. Members agree that, where explosive substances are to be used, they should be stored safely. That would be consistent with the Opposition's attitude in seeking assurances that the storage of explosives on the site will he monitored by the environmental health officers. We also want to ensure that adequate attention has been paid to planning methods.

Mr. McLoughlin: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that those matters are already covered by the strictest of legislation—for example, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974? As anyone working in the coal industry knows, there is strict security for any explosives kept on Coal Board property. It is a requirement of law, so there is no need for the hon. Gentleman to ask for assurances.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman, quite obviously, has never served on a local authority planning committee. If he had, he would know that anyone wishing to store explosive substances—irrespective of any licence issued by the Health and Safety Executive or the mining authorities — must first have permission from the planning authority for the construction of the physical place in which those explosives are to be stored. There is no better example of that than in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), where an ICI explosives factory has recently extended its production. I served on the planning committee that dealt with the application for that extension, which included the storage of explosive substances.
Another problem will be the noise on industrial sites caused by the repair and storage of vehicles. Can the sponsors of the Bill give me some idea whether the company has consulted the planning authorities and local residents about the number of hours needed to repair vehicles? The repair and storage of vehicles on construction sites can cause considerable difficulties both for local residents and for wildlife. That is especially true at weekends if companies allow such work on heavy plant and machinery.
The proposed site is in a sensitive area, and it would be quite unacceptable to allow either explosive substances to be used or the repair and maintenance of heavy plant and machinery to be carried out during weekends. What discussions have the Bill's sponsors had with the appropriate environmental health officers? It is essential that planning regulations prevent the site from being used at weekends.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who has already spoken on a number of occasions. There was much force in many of his arguments. For a number of years, when I was an Environment Minister, I was chairman of the Noise Council, so I understand the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the impact of explosives—not only on wildlife but on the comfort of those living in the area.
I also listened carefully to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on the difficulties of enforcing on subcontractors the undertakings entered into by the prime contractors. Of course, it would be for the public authorities to take action against any subcontractor who caused noise or nuisance that was unacceptable under the general health laws. The laws are there to protect citizens and no contractor, simply because of the Bill, can escape liability under the general noise regulations. Therefore, this Bill could not in any way give immunity from prosecution to anyone whether prime or subcontractor. That is the standard that applies to any legislation.
I have had some private discussions with the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and I think that I now understand a little more clearly what he and the hon. Member for Makerfield are seeking to achieve.
Section 24 of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1956 is applied to the Bill by clause 10. In other words, we

have taken over from the 1956 Act a requirement that the dock company must give seven days' notice to the Suffolk Coastal district council before it uses any explosives. That is a statutory obligation arising from the previous Act which is now incorporated in clause 10.
12 noon
Amendment No. 15, with which we have already dealt, would require the dock company to serve a similar notice on the regional officer of the nature Conservancy Council. The dock company has no objection at all to that additional requirement, which we have also considered.
Section 39 of the 1956 Act, as similarly applied to the Bill, provides for the correction of any errors in the deposited plan and the book of reference. That procedure involves an application to the local magistrates court. The magistrate may correct the deposited plan or book of reference and he can then issue a certificate of correction to make sure that the matter is right. That is done by an independent quasi-judicial authority. Section 39(3) requires the dock company to deposit a copy of such a certificate with, among others, the chief executive of Suffolk county council.
Amendment No. 16 would require the dock company to deposit a further copy of that certificate with the chief executive of the Suffolk Coastal district council. Again, the dock company has no objection to that further requirement.
To the extent that those requirements parallel the two amendments that have been moved by the hon. Member for Wrexham, I am sure that the Bill's promoters would be willing to accept amendments Nos. 21 and 22. I shall so recommend to them and I hope that I can confirm in a few moments that if the House is willing to accept those concessions, and not, as happened before, to reject them by Divisions, I hope that the dock company will be prepared to accept the amendments.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has done precisely what he has been doing all evening. He has been giving undertakings to the House on behalf of the promoters. Ministers have not been coming to the Dispatch Box to comment on those undertakings, and, when Divisions have been called, his hon. Friends have voted against his undertakings and those given by the promoters.
That means not so much that we have to convince the hon. Gentleman, but that he must convince his hon. Friends. We must convince his hon. Friends, because he cannot give us an undertaking on behalf of his hon. Friends, in the event, that, if any hon. Member were to seek to divide the House so as to allow his constituents to gauge the measure of support given by hon. Members to the amendments——

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Let me clarify the point. On behalf of the promoters, I have made a fair offer—to accept the amendments. If there is no Division, those amendments will stand part of the Bill. They become the law—at least, the private law—of the land. Only if an hon. Member insists on seeking to divide the House is there any question of those amendments not becoming part of the Bill. Therefore, Labour Members can have concessions only if they do not seek to divide the House.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is a remarkable statement by a Member of the House of Commons, who was elected


by 50,000 or 60,000 constituents and who now comes to Parliament and says, "If you divide on this issue, you will be defeated." One has a right to divide the House so that constituents may know the way in which their Member of Parliament thinks on such matters. The Division lists of the House of Commons are a gauge that enable people outside to examine and understand the positions taken by their Members of Parliament. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he has an obligation to convince his hon. Friends that they should not vote against these amendments. He cannot expect to win a debate in this House by default, but that is what he wants. He wants a win by default, rather than one achieved by way of voting judgment. That is an abuse of our procedures. We are perfectly entitled to seek to divide the House and to seek an expression of opinion by hon. Members.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: During the night, when I and may hon. Friends were present for all the Divisions, I watched closely those hon. Members who called for Divisions. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman called in an opposite way to the way in which he had spoken during the debate. It must confuse the hon. Gentleman's constituents greatly to hear him speak in favour of an amendment but then shout "No". When there is no distinction or Division in the House on the amendment, it seems quite contrary for the hon. Gentleman to shout against his own amendment and force a Division. It is not surprising that my hon. Friends who have conceded the point feel that if the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take part in the general undertaking, the undertaking no longer applies to them.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that the hon. Gentleman was elected in July——

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: No; it was in June.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I presume that the hon. Gentleman observes what is happening. He will note, and tomorrow Hansard will confirm, that I have not spoken in the debates that have taken place. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell me when I did so and in what debate I expressed my views. Will he do so?

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He may not have made a formal speech, but he gave many expressions of his point of view by intervening in the speeches of other hon. Members.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware of the strong stricture in "Erskine May" against an hon. Member expressing a voice in one direction when a vote is called, but voting in the opposite direction. I understand that "Erskine May" makes it quite clear that any hon. Member who has a complaint about that should raise it at the first opportunity. If my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) had possibly committed that error—I am sure that he did not—surely it would be incumbent on any hon. Member making such an allegation to raise it immediately at the end of the Division in question. As it was not raised, surely it is wrong for any hon. Member to come back now, many hours later, and make such an allegation? Would it not be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that allegation?

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not in any way seeking to

make a complaint about the actions of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I understand why he did so. It was to obstruct the Bill's passage because there would he a 15-minute delay in the debate while we had a Division. I understand that. I have no complaint, because that is what I expect.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): This is an unnecessarily convoluted argument. Mr. Campbell-Savours.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The reason why I sought to divide the House was as I have already stated. I believe that Divisions should take place so that the public can then measure the views of their Members of Parliament. Most Conservative Members represent rural seats, with large rural communities and a great body of green opinion, or they seek to do so. I want that green opinion to understand that those green expressions are not being represented in the Division Lobbies of the House of Commons. Anyone examining our proceedings will notice that I was one who called Divisions to enable the public to measure the support of Conservative Members for the amendments to the Bill. They will be shocked when they read the Division lists.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The facts are far less sinister than the hon. Gentleman has suggested. The reason why Conservative Members voted against the amendments put forward was that a quid pro quo existed. The agreement was that if the Labour party did not waste time by calling unnecessary Divisions, we would not vote against or object to a minor change in the Bill. However, if the Labour party intends to waste the time of the House, by George, we will get exactly the Bill that we want.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall not give way on this matter again. However, hon. Members will know that the Labour party had no Whip on this Bill. Labour Members have been voting freely all night. There was no official Labour position. No one has been required to vote in any way and, indeed, throughout the night, I have voted against the position adopted by my hon. Friends. Therefore, the case put by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) falls.
The next issue raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds—I should be grateful if he would consider this matter, although he is standing behind the Bar—was that subcontractors should be dealt with by local authorities with what he describes as the substantial powers available to those authorities. The truth is that, invariably, local authorities do not exercise those powers and do not do so because of the expenditure involved. Often, the authorities seek undertakings. However, the problem on this occasion is that, within a seven-day period, damage could be done to the environment. That is what we are trying to prevent. Indeed, it is the noise disturbance arising from explosions, dealt with in the amendments, that has led me to put my case today.
I live outside Keswick in the Lake district. I live on the hill that leads to the lowest slopes of the highest mountain in England, Skiddaw. My home is in the middle of a natural habitat for thousands of birds. It is perhaps one of the most bird-infested—that is not the right word because they are a joy—areas of the United Kingdom. I know what happens when men come with their shotguns to disturb the peace and tranquility of the area. Indeed, I


believe that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), at present sitting on the Treasury Front Bench, also lives in the Lake district in similar environmental surroundings. He will also be aware how explosions can disturb the tranquility of our area.
The proposed Felixstowe dock expansion would involve the construction of new docks in the Orwell estuary. That development would, in turn, lead to the destruction of an area of inter-tidal land providing mud flats, salt marshes and old oyster beds. We have referred to that area as Fagbury flats. I apologise for my slight hesitation, but perhaps it is because I have been here all night. Fagbury flats are of critical importance to the environment and conservation.
The Bill will allow that area to be used for expansion by the Felixstowe Dock and Harbour Company and it is proposed to give in return an area known as Trimley marshes. What worries us is what will happen on those marshes as and when construction work begins on the area that is to be reclaimed in favour of the Felixstowe Dock and Harbour Company. The company has also promised extensive screening with a massive tree-planting programme.

Mr. Clay: My hon. Friend is dealing with an important point. I am intervening at this time because I am aware that, during the course of the debate throughout the night, he was helpful as he had a number of maps that were useful for guidance. The new reserves are an unsatisfactory gesture. What is the proximity between those new reserves and the area in which the explosions will take place? It will be something of an irony if a new conservancy is set up in an area so close to a site on which there will be explosions that birds will not settle there.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The answer is simple. Trimley marshes is shown on the map as next door to Fagbury flats. Therefore, there would be a disturbance of the new conservancy area. There is to be a promised extensive screening and tree-planting programme. That is significant because that recognises that there is a need to form a barrier between the new conservancy and the old one. That barrier is being set up to deal with the problem that we are considering in the amendment.

Mr. McCartney: Can my hon. Friend indicate the position of the county council to the so-called environmental measures? It is my understanding that at about 3 o'clock this morning it was suggested that the county council considered it wholly inadequate and totally contrary to its policy, despite the discussions that have taken place between itself and the company.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I can only presume that those people in the local authorities who have interests in the environment would support the amendment that we are proposing and would support every effort reduce the number of explosions that are likely to take place and disturb the natural habitat. The natural habitat includes not only the area that is to be the subject of reclamation and the Trimley marshes, but the tributaries of the Orwell. The Orwell is regarded as one of the most beautiful areas of the United Kingdom. I found a book in the Library called "Tideways and Byways in Sussex, Essex and

Suffolk" by Archie White. The book refers to the area as beautiful, quiet and undisturbed. The amendments deal with the effect of explosions on the area, so I shall read this beautiful and delightful poem:
Of Philip de Broke, of 'Chesapeake' fame;
Of Candish who sailed round the world O.
Of Vernon who hatefully watered the rum.
(They nicknamed the felon 'Old Grog O')
But more than all these, I tell of a star
Which shines in the East like a jewel.
Sparkling enchantingly down to the sea
The wonder of Suffolk—The Orwell.
Another beautiful description is to be found in a book called "Suffolk" by William Addison. He described the scenic route along the Orwell:
Skirting Ipswich we pass from the Gipping to the Orwell, where the river changes not only its name but every aspect of its character.
All that is to be shattered by explosions in the development.
The quiet villages of the Gipping are quickly forgotten as the eye sweeps the broad estuary of the Orwell, its waters busy with vessels bearing their merchandise to Ipswich or away to distant ports. Yachts and rowing boats enliven the scene throughout the summer months, and when the tide is out the gulls glide down to stalk about the mud banks, where they chatter in the wind and search the ooze for worms. The pull of the restless tide is felt as it runs out of the spacious estuary, and we feel, too, that we arc on the brink of hazard and adventure".
What beautiful words, evoking a scene that is to be shattered by the explosions.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: As one who has lived in the area for the past 25 years or so and cares deeply for it, I must say that, while I appreciate the idyllic picture that the hon. Gentleman is painting with the aid of one of our better writers, the reality is that there is far more noise around in the Orwell. For example, there is the noise from the Ipswich football ground and from the aircraft that take off from military as well as civil airports—and from the substantial amount of heavy industry that we are glad to have in Ipswich. Such occasional sounds are part of the requirements of the construction of civil works.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The villager from Trimley in Suffolk with whom I conversed tells another story. He speaks of the area being disturbed much more than it is by any existing background noise. So I think that the hon. Gentleman may well be egging his cake too much in his defence of the company's proposals.

Mr. Clay: It seems to me that the discussion of the amendment has centred overwhelmingly on explosives and the noise that they cause. My hon. Friend has used words, such as "shattering", which show that he is thinking of the noise problem. However, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has just made the point that explosions are, after all, one-off noises. It would be interesting to discuss the United States military bases and other such matters if we were discussing a different type of Bill.
Is my hon. Friend aware of any undertakings having been given about dust arising from explosions? That is not a one-off matter, because the dust can remain for a long time, as can other types of atmospheric disturbance. It is crazy that the new conservancy should be situated next to an area in which explosions will take place. The noise, dust and other types of atmospheric disturbance will make a mockery of it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes ; that is what the villagers of Trimley think. I presume that their village is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. Their views are not being represented in our debate.
There is another publication to which I should draw the House's attention. It concerns what there is of historical interest in Trimley, which may be damaged by explosions, particularly violent ones. Referring to Trimley, it states:
Another case of two churches sharing the same churchyard. The church of Trimley St. Martin is now mostly 19th century. That of St. Mary has a ruined 14th century west tower with a tine medieval doorway. Inside is a cartoon by an Italian artist showing the Madonna with the Infant Christ and John the Baptist.
All this is placed at risk. Although parts of them are used, these are historic ruins. There is a danger that vigorous and fierce explosions in the area may well further disturb these buildings of historic interest. The publication says:
The buildings of the rapidly expanding port and dock of Felixstowe are encroaching along the river, almost to Trimley.
That opinion is also expressed in Trimley, where people are worried about the development that is likely to take place if the Bill secures Royal Assent. The people of Trimley are worried about the effect that it will have on the village.

Mr. McCartney: It was precisely the issue of residents and the company's desire or otherwise to consult them that I raised in my earlier intervention. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) suggested that he would give us some assurances, but so far he has remained dumb on the matter. My hon. Friend's correspondence shows that the company has made no effort whatever to have genuine consultations with the communities that will be affected by the proposals. That being the case, will my hon. Friend press the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds—if that hon. Member can tear himself away for a moment from his discussions with his hon. Friends—to answer the points raised earlier about consultation with residents?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The reason for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds ignoring what is happening in the debate was revealed a few minutes ago when he said "It is just outside my constituency." Perhaps I could use the words that the hon. Gentleman used in the Division Lobby. He said, "It is Gummer's problem." That is the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. He is unwilling to accept that because the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) cannot speak on the Bill, he should be more ready to take on the burden. The hon. Gentleman wants to talk but not to listen, and that is precisely what he has been doing for the last few minutes. The central point that must be argued again and again is that the Orwell estuary is a natural habitat of outstanding natural beauty, not just in any statutory sense but in every way.

Mr. Morley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Nature Conservancy Council was prevented from giving evidence to the Committee in terms of putting forward its points of view about the effects of the Bill on the environment? Does that not lead one to think that the Government and the promoters of the Bill have something to hide in preventing the Nature Conservancy Council from giving its professional advice?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No doubt the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and his right hon. Friend the Member

for Suffolk, Coastal took a great interest in the infamous letter, about which many of my hon. Friends will not be aware but which we discussed overnight. The Select Committee Chairman, who was a signatory to the invitation, will know why the Nature Conservancy Council was prevented from giving evidence—if that was the case. That proposition is remarkable, but it seems that it must have happened. Perhaps some hon. Member—the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds—could explain why the Nature Conservancy Council was prevented from giving evidence on these matters when they were considered by the Committee.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I do not know, so I am unable to help.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) raises an important issue, but obviously it is to go unanswered in the debate.

Mr. John Garrett: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Nature Conservancy Council was greatly grieved at riot having been allowed or invited to give evidence on this matter? To that extent the Opposition are inadequately briefed by the main body interested in nature conservancy in this country. To that extent the debate has been handicapped.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am not surprised at that. I am sure that the council would have wished to make a substantial statement on noise. As I understand it, the Nature Conservancy Council is a statutory body which was set up under the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973 to have responsibility for the conservation of flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features throughout the United Kingdom. That body would certainly have given evidence about the use of explosives. The council is financed by the Department of the Environment, but, according to information that I have received, it is supposed to he free to express its views. It is either free or it is not free. If it is free, surely it should have been given the opportunity to give evidence to the Select Committee.
12.30 pm
The functions of the Nature Conservancy Council include the establishment, maintenance and management of nature reserves. Therefore, the council must have much experience about those matters, and in particular about the problems that arise from excessive noise in parts of the United Kingdom.

Ms. Joan Walley: In view of the comments that we have just heard about the effect of noise pollution, has my hon. Friend any information whether environmental health officers will be increased in local authorities to monitor the excessive noise pollution in that area as a result of the proposals in the Bill?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I did not quite hear all of my hon. Friend's question. There is a lot of noise going on around me at the moment and I am having great difficulty even hearing myself speak.
If I understood my hon. Friend's question correctly, she asked whether local authorities would have additional personnel to deal with noise which might arise as a result of the Bill reaching the statute book. The answer is that no special provision will be made. Local authorities are required to carry out statutory responsibilities without any extra resources.
We have heard that the Nature Conservancy Council was denied the opportunity to give evidence on noise to the Committee. The council is also responsible for the provision of advice to the Secretary of State or any other Minister for the development and implementation of policies for and affecting nature conservation in the United Kingdom. Further, it has responsibility for the provision of advice and dissemination of knowledge about nature conservation.
The council is also responsible for the commission or support, whether by financial means or otherwise, of research which, in the opinion of the council, is relevant to these matters. I am sure that, given the opportunity, the council would have wanted to research further into noise pollution. It would certainly have wanted to give evidence to the Committee on that matter.
The Nature Conservancy Council also has a duty, under section 28 under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to notify owners, occupiers, the local planning authority and the Secretary of State of any area of land which is
of special interest by reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features.
The council has given notice of its intention so to notify the estuary and inter-tidal land of the River Orwell including the tidal land that is part of the Bill.
It is clear that with those substantial responsibilities to notify, the council would equally want to notify of any dangers that may arise which could endanger the natural assets that exist in the River Orwell area.
The amendment relates to clause 24 of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1956. That states:
Before any explosive substance is used in exercise of the powers of this Act the Company shall give at least seven days' notice in writing marked Urgent (wich shall be served by posting by registered post) of the intention to use an explosive substance addressed to the engineer and surveyor of the Felixstowe Urban District Council.
The problem is that no urban district councils now exist. That is why the amendment has been introduced. However, it also provides an excellent opportunity to bring the regional officer of the Nature Conservancy Council into the case. In this instance, it is the officer responsible for Suffolk county council. I am sure that he will wish to carry out the responsibilities that I identified in my earlier remarks.
Section 24 of the 1956 Act deals with the use of explosives. The effect of clause 10(d) of the Bill is to make Suffolk coastal district council the successor authority to Felixstowe urban and district council, which was phased out in 1973. It would then become responsible for the purposes of section 24 of the 1956 Act.
Sudden loud, percussive noises are very disturbing to birds. One has only to fire a shotgun in the vicinity of the birds now inhabiting Fagbury mud flats—or, indeed, any estuary—to observe the effects that such noises have. In the depths of winter, during very cold weather, the birds must spend every hour of daylight searching for food if they are to remain alive. For that reason, provision is made in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for cold weather orders to be made by the Secretary of State for the Environment banning shooting when conditions are particularly severe. Would it not be thoroughly anomalous if the company were allowed to bang away with explosives while the shooting fraternity was barred from hunting

because of the cold weather? The amendment seeks to provide an opportunity for the Nature Conservancy Council to advise the company against explosives if conditions warrant it, but no compulsion would be involved.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has by now probably had the few moments for which he asked earlier in which to confirm whether the Bill's promoters are willing to accept the proposition that he put to the House before. As the hon. Gentleman is nodding, I presume that that is the case. However my hon. Friends may have reservations about what may happen in the Division Lobbies. We have no guarantee that some hon. Members will not once again defeat the recommendations of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and the undertakings given by the promoters.

Mr. McCartney: I took pains in my earlier contribution to tell the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that it was important to hon. Members such as myself, who are not going to divide the House, that he should give certain assurances about the role of the company and its involvement with the community on the environment and on explosive substances. So far, the hon. Gentleman has studiously avoided making the contribution that was promised.
This is important to all of us who are concerned about the issues that we raised with the hon. Gentleman. He indicated, both by nodding and verbally, that he would try to give us an assurance from the sponsors of the Bill, but he has still not done so. It is essential that, before we reach an appropriate vote, I receive assurances about such matters as noise levels, the duration of working hours, notification of residents in relation to structural and physical damage, the storage of explosives and the repair and storage of vehicles. If we are to make progress on the Bill, and if there is to be a positive contribution from either House, it is incumbent on the hon. Gentleman to come clean and give me some pertinent answers.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I know that my hon. Friend has been having that argument with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, and the hon. Gentleman does not seem to wish to be drawn on the matter, but, for all sorts of reasons, I feel that we must give him the benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of replying to me by intervening as I understand that he cannot speak twice during the debate. The only other way in which he can deal with the matter is by asking the Secretary of State to speak after me. Perhaps he can say which alternative he seeks to take.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene for the convenience of the House. I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who is not, as I understand it, directly involved in the amendments.
As I understand the position, for some time there has been a local liaison committee between the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and the county council, the district council and the parish councils, including Trimley. The committee was set up as long ago as 1977 specifically to ensure regular meetings to discuss all aspects of the interaction between the dock company, local organisations and local people. The committee's most recent meeting was in September.
Within the committee there are lively debates. In so far as the statutory bodies that are responsible for safeguarding the environment and have prosecution powers to deal with nuisance or noise are represented on the committee, and in so far as they also reached agreement with the dock company on the Bill, and in reaching agreement, withdrew their objections to it, I have to say to the House that there are ample powers and statutory bodies capable of ensuring that the types of nuisance that the hon. Gentleman is worried about are prevented or, if they are not, that prosecutions can ensue.
I hope that the House will understand that it is not within my gift to say precisely what the working hours will be, nor can I say precisely what the levels of explosion will be in the rare cases where it may be necessary to use explosions to move large quantities of earth. That is not within my gift. Indeed, I doubt whether it is within anyone's gift to give such guarantees.
All I can say is that it is within the authority of local councils to prosecute and within the powers of the clean air and alkaline inspectorate and others to move in if there is any infringement. That is the best that I can do for the House. I have said that the amendments, which lay upon the company some significant requirements, will be accepted by the House, as I understand it, if hon. Members do not divide.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: We must not once again enter the argument about what happens if we do not divide. That conditionality of Division appalls me. It smacks of everything that is anti-democratic. We shall not go down that route again. I am sure that Conservative Members know exactly what I am talking about and that privately they will agree with me. They know that the Division list is the true measure of any Member of Parliament. Any constituent has the right to examine it.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds qualified his substantial statement with the words "as I understand it". In my notes, I always write that as AIUI when I do not want to be held to something. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman does not want to be held to his statement, but we shall have to take what he says as the truth because I feel that he would wish to withdraw that conditionality from his statement.
The people of Trimley in the neighbouring constituency will note what the hon. Gentleman said to Parliament and will know that we have not pressed this matter to a Division because of the hon. Gentleman's undertaking and the threat of defeat. We are acting on the assumption that the hon. Gentleman's word holds. I hope that when the people of Trimley read Hansard, as they inevitably will if they are seeking to protect their interests, they will note that we were aware of the environmental damage that would arise in that community. Despite that and despite the concession granted by the promoters, I must say that I would want to vote for this amendment in the event of a Division.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I was drawn into this debate only a few minutes ago. [Interruption.] I arrived at the Bar of the House and realised what the amendment was about. [Interruption.] I readily concede that I am not familiar with the Bill.
When I heard that neither the local people nor the NCC had been consulted on the noise of explosives, I thought

that it might be to the advantage of the House, and I hope it will prove to be so, for someone to speak with many years' experience of areas where such explosions take place. I am sure that many Conservative Members, with the best will in the world, do not appreciate the havoc that can be caused.
We in mining areas, especially where there is opencast mining, appreciate that such explosions have caused great problems for many years. Noise is difficult to control, even with as many inspectors as we wish and with many weeks and months being spent defending and proving cases in the courts. In the end, some sort of compromise is probably reached, but that never solves the problem of noise.
Most of the noise happens at night. Children wake up and people find their beds shaking. Often, explosions are set off on a ratio basis and perhaps one will not go off. People get back to sleep and then the delayed explosion goes off a couple of hours later. I ask Conservative Members, and certainly those whose areas will be affected to visit these areas. The environment is devastated. What is left of the hedgerows is covered in dust and there is no greenery to be seen in the immediate vicinity.
On some occasions, houses have fallen down. It has never been possible to prove the cause, but owners allege that heavy shot firing in the area has brought that about. Recently, in my area houses have been built on soil where there have been sand workings and those houses have fallen down.
Many people believe that explosives have contributed to the problem. The wildlife that we all like to see in the countryside is nearly non-existent in such areas. We do not like that. Purely and simply, the problem arises out of what has taken place in local industry.
We who have lived in mining areas for many years have had to accept that the staple industries that provide our local economic wealth create such problems. Everybody, including Conservatives Members, must be aware that, if the development goes ahead, problems will increase. Conservative Members have referred to the amount of control that the Bill will provide, but we must ask whether it can work practically. My experience is that it cannot. The people who live in surrounding regions suffer when explosions occur. I hope that the House will consider the problems.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am sure that, with his wide experience in the House, though not on this Bill, the hon. Gentleman will know that among the original petitoners against the Bill were the county council and the district council. They negotiated with the dock company on a range of issues, including those which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It was only when the two representative local authorities were satisfied that the dock company had met the reasonable desires of the councils representing the people who were consulted that their objections were withdrawn. Suffolk Coastal district council and Suffolk county council no longer have any objections to the Bill. The matter has been dealt with.

Mr. Lofthouse: I fully accept that point, but I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the local authorities to which I referred have examined the matter, put safeguards in place and given planning permission. But that does not solve the practical problems. Indeed, people will have experiences similar to those of we who live in mining areas. We can put what we like on bits of paper and


have whatever agreements we want with local authorities, but, at the end of the day, local residents will suffer because of explosions. People must realise that they will not get away with it.

Mr. McCartney: I was interested in my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) about the overwhelming support from local councils and certain Conservative Members. I refer him to a letter that I received yesterday evening in relation to hospitality. Will my hon. Friend ask the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds whether similar hospitality arrangements were made for the councillors prior to their agreeing to the company's proposals?

Mr. Lofthouse: I note my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is an important point. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) made an important intervention when he referred to the distinction between the arrangements in local government and those in Parliament. He says that if the arrangements take place at the local level, they could be construed as illegal. The fact that they have taken place in Westminster means that they have somehow managed to get around the local government rules. That is significant. I should like an answer to my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Lofthouse: I intended to refer to the letter in the conclusion of my speech. I have not seen the letter but I have heard about it. I understand that it refers to this place and to hospitality. I am sure that some would think that such organised hospitality could border on corruption. Events of this sort bring the House into disrepute. Those who accepted the offer of hospitality must have had some understanding with individuals in the private sector. I do not know who provided the hospitality but some of my colleagues may have that knowledge. There were those who provided transport backwards and forwards——

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that yesterday Mr. Deputy Speaker said :
Order. We have covered this course"—
He is referring to this very point of hospitality—
The House has had a good run and I have been very patient. However, I repeat that it is the job of the Chair to protect the business of the House and there is much business before us. There is nothing that I can add. I have done my utmost to answer all the points of order that have been put to me."—[Official Report, 10 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 247.]
Both Mr. Speaker and. Mr. Deputy Speaker ruled last night that the matter had been dealt with.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am aware of that. I understand, however, that some hon. Members have not been in the Chamber for every minute throughout the debate.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The difference between the quotation of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) from yesterday evening's debate and the statement that was made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), without any prompting, is the involvement of local government officers and members——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a genuine point of order. I invite the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) to continue.

Mr. Lofthouse: I return to the reason why I intervened in the debate. I wished to bring to the attention of the House that which we in coal mining areas have experienced over many years. It is an experience that I believe will be shared by many others when the Bill is enacted. I hope that all hon. Members will bear that in mind when they make their decisions.
I must say in response to the point of order of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) that my reference to the letter was part of my speech and not the basis of a point of order. It is regrettable that the issue has arisen. I understand that in the end the hospitality was not made available——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We dealt with this issue hours and hours ago. I have listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman and I have been extremely tolerant. He should refer now to the amendments and not to any letter.

Mr. Clay: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) press the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)? We know that hospitality was on offer and that it was then withdrawn. I find it interesting that no reply has been forthcoming to the suggestion that hospitality was offered to and accepted by members and senior officers of the two local authorities involved. The question has not been put directly to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. Bearing in mind——

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Clay: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) wishes to raise a point of order.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Is it a point of order?

Mr. David Shaw: Yes, it is a point of order.

Mr. Clay: I was saying, Madam Deputy Speaker——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) was intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) when the hon. Member for Dover sought to raise a point of order.

Mr. David Shaw: We have all been advised, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we should treat fellow hon. Members with respect and, by and large, we try to do so, however much the temperature is raised. Occasionally we go over the top with fellow hon. Members, but it is extremely offensive to go over the top with those who are not here to defend themselves. There have been accusations and suggestions that local councillors have acted improperly. The hon. Gentleman should be stopped from saying such things.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that that is not the case.

1 pm

Mr. Clay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of last night's events it is perfectly


reasonable to suggest that my hon. Friend should yet again press the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) on this point because the hon. Gentleman has not yet answered the question. What discussions took place, what hospitality was offered and did the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is the real pilot of the Bill and who was chairman of the Conservative party, issue any reminders about donating money to Tory party funds?

Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will have heard that remark, and I shall not repeat it.
I understand that the Bill contains no special arrangements for environmental or other appropriate officers to control the explosions. The present regulations are nowhere near sufficient to control explosions, which create havoc in my area and will create havoc in the area covered by the Bill.

Mr. Stott: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting this interesting debate. However, I am informed that following pressure put on the Government last night, there is to be a statement at 3.30 pm about the proposed merger between British Caledonian and British Airways. We are grateful for that. May I suggest to the Government Whip that it would be convenient for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to come here this afternoon——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. A point of order can only be addressed to the Chair and it must deal with something for which the Chair can carry responsibility.

Mr. Stott: I shall address my point of order to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has returned from a very important meeting regarding Britain's future in space. For the past two days, he has been negotiating with other Ministers in Europe. According to press reports this morning it seems that our nation is not to play a significant part in the future development of European space technology. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should come to the House this afternoon to justify the decisions that he has made on our behalf, and to tell us why he made those decisions. May I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make a statement regarding the position that he took in Europe.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that I am capable of dealing with that point of order straight away. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, it is not a point of order with which the Chair can deal. The Chair has no responsibility for statements that are made, or not made, by Ministers. The Chair always grants requests to make statements, but so far no request has been made on this matter.

Mr. Forth: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you could assist the House by attempting to find out from the Opposition the subjects on which they seek statements. It seems that they are asking for not just one, but two or three statements or more. Who knows how many statements they will request? It would help us in our deliberations on the Bill—we are trying to make progress, although we are being hindered by the Opposition—if we could find out precisely what they want a statement on, when and by whom as there seems to be a multiplicity of requests.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) has made that clear.

Mr. Frank Cook: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) has identified the nature of the problem. If the Government were open and honest and gave forth the information according to precedent, we should not have to raise difficult points of order and put you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in a difficult position.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Conservative Members want to know what we are asking about. Conservative Members with firms such as Marconi, British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce in their constituencies will find that they are asked to explain our country's role in space following the failure to support the expanded programme agreed by Ministers attending the European Space Agency meeting on 10 and 11 November. Those hon. Members' constituents will want to know what they propose to do about jobs.
We would not necessarily disagree with the attitude of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but he must explain to the House exactly what role Britain is to play in space because it affects many thousands of jobs. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has described the European space programme as a fraud and Opposition Members agree with him to a certain extent. We agree that projects such as the Hermes project need to be examined in greater depth. However, we maintain that vital decisions need to be made because of our participation in other collaborative ventures. We need a statement from the right hon. and learned Gentleman so that we can reassure our constituents about the exact future of the reorganised British National Space Centre.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. that point was made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) who raised the original point of order. I have made it abundantly clear that the Chair can do nothing in this matter. We must now proceed with the Bill.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a slightly different point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) suggested that it would be unusual, indeed unprecedented, for more than one statement to be made this afternoon. Could you confirm that it is perfectly in order and quite usual for the Government to make more than one statement? indeed, if the matters involved are sufficiently important, the Government should be making more than one statement.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The House knows that on occasion, more than one statement is made.

Mr. William McKelvey: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Having listened carefully to the points that you have made about your responsibility, will you advise the House whether the Secretary of State for Scotland has sought your permission to make a statement at 4 pm to coincide with the publication of the White Paper on Scottish homes? That is very important to Scottish Members, especially as it is possible that Scottish business will be lost for the month.

Madam Deputy Speaker: No one has sought my permission to make a statement on those matters. We were discussing amendment No. 21.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 10, line 28, at end
insert
'and with the chief executive of Suffolk Coastal District Council'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Mr. Morley: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 11, line 19, after 'if, insert
'in subsection (1) after "highway", where that word thirdly occurs, were inserted the words "or seeking access to the foreshore for any legitimate purpose,".'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 27, in page 11, line 44, after `(iii)' insert
`in section 14(2), after the word "foreshore" insert "or any right of way" and'.

Mr. Morley: Let me expand on what the amendment seeks to achieve. The amendment relates specifically to clause 10(h). To complicate matters at an early stage, it also refers to section 10 of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1968. Altogether, clause 10 appears to be a most complicated affair, because it bears a detailed relationship to other private Acts passed to enable the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to expand its operations. The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Acts 1956, 1968, 1979 and 1981 were introduced to enable works to be carried out.
The amendment relates to the 1968 Act. Section 10 States:
The Company during and for the purpose of the execution of the works may with the consent of the highway authority temporarily stop up and divert and interfere with any highway and may for any reasonable time divert the traffic there from and prevent all persons other than those bona fide going to or from any land, house or building abutting on the highway from passing along and using the same.
The amendment seeks to insert the words:
or seeking access to the foreshore for any legitimate purpose.
We simply wish to give those who want access to the foreshore the legitimate means of achieving it. For those who have access to the 1968 Act, the words in the amendment would be inserted after the word "highway" where it occurs the third time in the penultimate line of section 10.
The major construction that will occur at Felixstowe dock will cause diversions to road traffic, but the area is a site of special scientific interest and of outstanding natural beauty. The House will agree that it is important to enable local residents to have access to the foreshore to go about their legitimate business.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is my hon. Friend talking about pedestrian access only, or about vehicular access to the foreshore?

Mr. Morley: It could be interpreted as including vehicles, but there is no road to the foreshore. The amendment aims to include those who wish to visit the foreshore for recreation, such as taking the dog for a walk, fishing or bird watching—the normal activities that one would associate with an area of outstanding natural beauty which people want to visit. During construction work it is important not to limit access to the foreshore.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: A four-wheel drive vehicle could gain access to the area. Would that be excluded by the amendment? Is my hon. Friend talking only about pedestrian access for people who wish to go bird watching?

Mr. Morley: That is correct. Regulations concerning the ownership of the land control the access of vehicles. The amendment is aimed at those who wish to walk in the area. The Ramblers Association is anxious that such amendments are made to private development Bills so that people's legitimate access is not interfered with. We are aware of the problems caused by ploughing up rights of access across farms and by the diversion of rights of way through new housing developments. Many rights of way have been lost.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: If the amendment is accepted, we shall be protecting the fundamental freedom to enjoy rights of access to that area. If it is not accepted, people may be denied access for a long time. The time element worries me. We do not know from the Bill how long the construction work will continue.

Mr. Morley: Some of the previous amendments were designed to deal with the time scale of, and the interference that would be caused by, construction work.
The area is so beautiful that it attracts not only local people but people from all over the country. Some of my constituents regularly visit the area. I know one person—a keen bird watcher—who visited the site some years ago to see a Franklin gull, a rare species of North American gull. The area not only serves local people but is nationally important. It is important, not only to maintain rights of access for local people, who use the area most, but to reserve rights of access for the entire community so that everyone can see such areas of outstanding natural beauty. Although there may be times when the road is blocked, pedestrian access must not be frustrated.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is my hon. Friend saying that if a rare species of bird, such as the Franklin gull, settled on this estuary and it was the only place in the United Kingdom where keen bird watchers could see it, the Bill would make no provision for access for those who were interested in seeing the bird, or in writing about the history of rare birds visiting Britain?

Mr. Morley: Our major anxiety is the ambiguity of the clause. It is clear that road access can be blocked, but it is not clear whether that will apply to pedestrians. The amendment would make the clause clear, so that there was no doubt about our aim, which is that during construction pedestrians should not be stopped from getting down to the foreshore and going about their legitimate leisure pursuits. Bird watching is one such pursuit. There are many others, such as fishing and the pleasure of walking for its own sake. That is why the amendment is supported by all the countryside organisations, which are worried about access.

Mrs. Mahon: I am not familiar with the Franklin gull, but I wonder whether, during the long-drawn-out passage of the Bill, advice was taken on its protection. Has a guarantee been given that this rare bird will survive after the disturbance of its habitat?

Mr. Morley: I understand from my acquaintance, Mr. Jimmy Morgan, that the bird was seen by many hundreds of people from all over the country.
The site that is threatened by the dock is one of special scientific interest. These sites are not declared that out of the blue. They are designated because of their significance


to the local wildfowl. for any bird, whether rare or common, the loss of the mud flats will be catastrophic in the long term. The pressure on our wetlands and estuaries is increasing every year, and that is why we want to amend the Bill. It is an important issue concerning rights of access, and it has national connotations.

Mr. Dennis Turner: We are talking, not about just one rare bird, but about widgeons, oystercatchers, dunlin, redshank and a whole range of birds. If the facility to watch these birds is removed, those who enjoy such pursuits will be prevented from following their interests.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is correct. We have discussed the problems for wildfowl and bird watchers in great depth, and have noted the numbers of birds that are recorded as visiting that area during winter months. It is at that time of the year and during the migratory period that the site is of particular importance, because many birds, ducks and wildfowl stop there to feed in a secure place. That is why the Ramsar convention identified the site as an important international site. That shows the implications of the scheme for environmental disturbance and damage. We want to ensure that, should the scheme go ahead, we preserve the rights of people both nationally and locally——

Mr. McCartney: Is not this aspect of the Bill rather reminiscent of the cuckoo in the nest? Rather than going through the normal planning procedures, there has been an abuse of the private Bill procedure to foist on an area of outstanding beauty with natural bird and wildlife a scheme where not only the birds, but those who protect them and derive enjoyment from watching them, will be excluded from the area. Is not the Bill even more draconian than the attitude taken by the Ministry of Defence towards rights of way on MOD properties? Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) will outline clearly the intention of the Bill's promoters.

Mr. Morley: Indeed, it would help the House if the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) told us whether he is prepared to accept the amendment to defend the rights of local people to enjoy their heritage. It is especially important to ensure that local people can enjoy what is left of their heritage if the scheme goes ahead and irreparable damage is done to the area.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I assure the House that the promoters of the Bill are willing to accept the amendment as it stands—
or seeking access to the foreshore for any legitimate purpose"—
and include it in the Bill should the House be minded to accept that.

Mr. Morley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his positive response. Unfortunately, I am reminded of an unfortunate incident earlier this morning when a similar undertaking was given, but when the House divided the Government changed their mind and voted against the amendment——

Mr. Ron Davies: I remind my hon. Friend that that was not a matter for the Government. After all, this is private legislation, as has been made clear throughout the proceedings. The dispute arose from the paternity of the Bill. There was some doubt whether the hon. Member for

Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) was in charge of the Bill. He said, on behalf of the sponsors, that he would accept a particular amendment. He then deliberately arranged to vote in one Lobby while his hon. Friends voted in the other Lobby. During the Division he denied any responsibility for the Bill. He said that it was not he, but his right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—now the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—who was in charge. Therefore, I suggest that when my hon. Friend receives assurances from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, he takes them with a pinch of salt.

Mr. Morley: There is some truth in what my hon. Friend has said. I stand corrected in referring to the Government—I appreciate that it is a private Bill. I tended to think of the Government because the former chairman of the Conservative party—the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—has an interest in the Bill. Indeed, the company promoting the Bill donated large sums of money to the Conservative party. That is why I am concerned about the way in which the Bill has come to Parliament. By the use of the private Bill system, normal planning applications are not necessary. People do not have the right to object other than by petition during the Committee stage—and even then the Nature Conservancy Council was prevented from giving evidence. That is deplorable.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Lest there be any misunderstanding, may I point out that we have just debated amendments Nos. 21 and 22? I said that if the House was prepared to accept those amendments the company sponsoring the Bill would be prepared to accept them also. I said that if there were no Division the amendments would be accepted and become part of the Bill. There was no Division, and the amendments are now part of the Bill. I can give the hon. Gentleman the same assurance about this amendment.

Mr. McCartney: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We cannot have an intervention within an intervention. The original intervention must be dealt with first.

Mr. Morley: I accept that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds gives that assurance in good faith. II is unfortunate that we had a bad experience earlier, which tends to make us a little wary now. However, I sincerely hope that there is common ground between us in seeking to protect access, rights of way and the rights of local people to enjoy their area.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: My hon. Friend mentioned that we were now having to be wary. It is important that we protect the natural habitat of wildlife and the rights of people to enjoy that. In my area we had to protect a wildfowl called the smew, which lived only on the Welsh Harp. If it had not been for the vigilance of local organisations, that creature would no longer exist. Obviously, industries are concerned only with their building projects being completed on time, and not with the destruction of the area. In many cases our heritage and rights to enjoy wildlife, as well as the basic rights of those creatures to exist, have been destroyed because we have not been sufficiently vigilant. We must ensure that access to the area is maintained and, in particular, that wildlife is protected.

Mr. Morley: I agree with my hon. Friend. There have been too many cases of the obstruction of important rights of way by various developments, sometimes after assurances that they would be reinstated or protected.
In view of the assurances given by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, I shall leave amendment No. 25 and deal with amendment No. 27.

Mr. McCartney: Let me take my hon. Friend back, not a few hours, but three years. Is it not a fact that in the past three years not one dot or comma has been conceded on the Bill, but that, because of the qualitative and quantitative nature of the Opposition in the past 12 or 15 hours, we have seen the deathbed conversion of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths)? The champagne that was flowing last night is pretty flat now. The hon. Gentleman's concessions have come because he thinks that the measure may fail as a result of the Opposition's brilliant campaign over the past 15 hours.

Mr. Morley: I note my hon. Friend's comments. He makes a fair point. The amendments have been tabled for a long time. These are serious issues. There has been some disruption today because of the nature of the debate and the way in which it has been drawn out, yet the debate could have been shortened considerably if these reasonable amendments had been accepted a long time ago.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Before my hon. Friend leaves amendment No. 25, will he deal with one important word in the amendment, with which he has not yet dealt, and at which I may not have looked so carefully had not the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) intervened earlier. I am referring to the word "legitimate". We are talking about
access to the foreshore for any legitimate purpose.
If the sponsors of the Bill are willing to accept the amendment, who will define "legitimate purpose"? Will it be the Bill's sponsors, or Members of Parliament?

Mr. Morley: It would be useful if "legitimate" were defined. It must be interpreted in terms of the use of the area in keeping with the area and within any existing regulations or restrictions. For example, "legitimate" would exclude the use of scramble motor cycles, which would damage the area. I know that that would be disapproved of by responsible scramble clubs, which tend to have their own areas. Therefore, we can feel fairly safe about the meaning of the word "legitimate" in the operation of the amendment.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I do not want to press my point too far, but how can my hon. Friend be sure that the Bill's sponsors share our view of the meaning of the word "legitimate"?

Mr. Morley: I cannot speak on the exact interpretation of the word by the Bill's sponsors, but I hope that if they disagree with my interpretation they will give their own.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It would be for the courts to decide. That is the safeguard.

Mr. Morley: That is the final analysis.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) is right. It would be for the courts to decide what was legitimate, but the point that is being made is that there is a long

process to be gone through before one asks the courts for their interpretation. We are talking about people being turned away by the company on the grounds that at that moment the company does not accept that the activity is legitimate and within the terms of the Bill.
I do not know what can be done about that now. Perhaps a longer statement from the Bill's supporters would give us the assurances that we need. We have talked at some length about the need for access for people who want to see rare and endangered species of birds. My hon. Friend will know that, because of recent storms, many birds which do not usually come to Britain have been blown off their migratory course and have landed here. I understand that there has been a sighting of the lesser spotted African bush creeper. If ornithologists knew that that bird had landed in this area there would be a panic.

Mr. Morley: I can confirm that a lesser spotted African bush creeper would cause a great deal of panic among ornithologists if it were seen in the area. There is no denying that.
I have given my interpretation of the word "legitimate". In the end, as has been pointed out, it will be for the courts to decide, given the custom and use of the area.
Amendment No. 27 is complicated by the fact that it refers to previous Felixstowe Dock and Railway Acts. This time the reference is to section 14(2) of the 1968 Act, which was referred to extensively in the debate on the previous amendment.
Clause 14(2) of the 1968 Act deals with work that has been started, but has been discontinued, for whatever reason. It states:
Where a work authorised by this Act, and consisting partly of a tidal work and partly of works on or over land above the level of high water, is abandoned or suffered to fall into decay and that part of the work on or over land above the level of high water is in such condition as to interfere or to cause reasonable apprehension that it may interfere with the right of navigation or other public rights over the foreshore, the Board may include that part of the work, or any portion thereof, in any notice under this section.
The board that is referred to is the old Board of Trade.
We are talking about such things as piers and breakwaters. As hon. Members may be aware, there are many examples of various tidal works or works dealing with erosion which have been left to fall into decay and could be a danger to navigation, to people or to children playing on them.
Amendment No. 27 seek to add the words:
or any right of way".
That gives protection to rights of way that the public use, because they, too, have been known to fall into disrepair or have decayed and become unsafe.
For example, in extending a dock a footbridge may be installed as part of a right of way and, over a period, that footbridge may decay and become dangerous. That would be covered by the addition of the words:
or any right of way".
That would ensure that a structure such as a footbridge, part of a pier, or pilings which may be part of a coastal path which may fall into disrepair could be repaired by the board to ensure the right of access. Hon. Members can see how the amendment is linked with the previous one to ensure right of access for the reasons that I have already outlined, particularly the nature of the area as a site of outstanding natural beauty and people's legitimate right of access to the foreshore.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has agreed to accept amendment No. 25, and I thank him for his positive response. I hope that he will also consider amendment No. 27, particularly in view of the examples that I have outlined. I am sure that my hon. Friends can think of other examples of other possible difficulties.
The important thing about the Bill and the amendments is to make it absolutely clear at this stage that we are talking about safeguarding access, safety and other issues, so that there will not be any confusion in future years once the Bill has been enacted—if it is enacted—and local people are not let down and access is not denied them. Those issues should be clarified.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: rose——

Mr. Morley: I should like to finish although I would welcome comments from hon. Members on any of the aspects that I have raised.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I should like to give the Government's view of amendment No. 27. As the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) pointed out, it extends the scope of section 14 of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1968 in its application to works authorised by the Bill. Section 14 is a normal stock provision to require the company to repair or remove works that are both on land and in the water if they are abandoned or get into bad condition and interfere with navigation or public rights on the foreshore.
The amendment would extend the power to works that interfere with rights of way. It would give the Secretary of State. as successor to the Board of Trade, the power to protect rights of way by requiring the company to repair or remove certain works that are in bad condition or abandoned and thus interfere with rights of way. I know of no rights of way that would be affected at present. On behalf of the Government, I have no objection to the amendment and would be prepared to advise the House to accept it.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: As I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) it might be convenient if I follow my right hon. Friend in saying that amendment No. 27 is equally acceptable to the promoters. If the House is mindful to accept amendments Nos. 25 and 27, they will form part of the Bill.

Mr. McCartney: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Amendment No. 25 could be best described as a kind of trespass amendment. It attempts to bring back into the Bill a condition that was fought for in 1926—the right of ramblers and others in free association to cross publicly-owned land. Therefore, it is important that the amendment is part of the Bill, irrespective of its final content.
It is essential that the rights of ramblers and other conservationists are protected in the long-term development of the area that we have been debating for the past 17 hours. Rights of way have taxed the minds of many of us who have been in local government. We can all think of examples from farming or industrial communities in which redevelopment has taken place. The first benefit that is attacked is the right of way of individuals. All too often, local authorities are under considerable pressure to give way to the interests of the developer. Therefore, it is important, even with the assurances that we have been

given, that we tell the local authority that we expect the county council concerned to ensure that whatever orders are made will defend public footpaths. In reality, such diversions are worth while and are not simply conveniences to get round this clause and render rights of way meaningless.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does my hon. Friend not agree that no hon. Member has yet dealt with the specific problem that individual members of the public have a right to know what the rights of way are? It is one thing for assurances to be given that rights of way will be maintained and that suitable diversions will be made, but there is the problem of informing people of the fact that they have a right of way across a piece of land. If a lot of work is to take place in one area, many ordinary members of the public may be unaware of their rights. So far, no hon. Member has mentioned any steps that would ensure that the public are aware of their rights in such a situation.

Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that point to my attention. She is absolutely right that this is a constant problem. Even when one wins the right to retain a footpath or bridleway, there remains the job of informing the public of their rights and, more specifically, the areas where they can traverse a piece of land.
1.45 pm
It might be helpful if the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds would state whether the promoters of the Bill are prepared to use their own resources to produce a pamphlet for public consumption in the area concerned and for distribution to the Ramblers' Association stating the locations of the footpaths that have been agreed, and what can be seen from them. Such a document would not only refer to rights, but would promote the environment in the community. My own local authority in Wigan does such things on a regular basis. Every time that a footpath is altered, such a facility is provided and I commend that arrangement to the Bill's promoters.
The public in Suffolk will be interested in what will be at stake if the amendment is not passed. The clause as it stands would affect three areas: one is an area of outstanding natural beauty, another is a site of special scientific interest, and the third is the proposed area of the wetland that is covered by the Ramsar convention, which is internationally accepted. The Bill involves not only the loss of rights of way, but the loss of other rights that are associated with some of the most important ecological parts of the United Kingdom. It is essential that those areas are maintained not only for their bird and plant life, but so that, where appropriate, members of the public can traverse them and make use of them. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds have shown support for this aspect of the Bill.
The problems that we have been discussing highlight the problems of the Bill and the way in which it is being handled. Would it not have been better if, at the outset, the company and the promoters had agreed to an environmental impact assessment? If there had been such an assessment and use of the planning procedures, the issues raised on these amendments would have been dealt with three years ago and a common agreement would have been reached between the planning authorities, the company and the community. We would not have had the hassle of the past 17 hours, or the past three years. The


community would have been involved. The tragedy of this debate, whenever it ends, is that the only people who have not been involved have been those in the community to which the Bill refers, whether ramblers, the people who live in the local area, or the villagers who have complained to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about not being consulted.
I was pleased that the Secretary of State expressed Government support for amendment No. 27. My local authority, Wigan metropolitan council, of whose planning committee I was recently a member, is well-known to the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment for pioneering work in relation to what is set out in clause 10. When giving people rights it is essential that the area is maintained to protect the right of way and the natural habitat. If rights of way such as bridlepaths are not properly maintained, far too often ramblers cannot cross areas of land where the habitat has been destroyed. Therefore, it is important not only for the rights of ramblers, but for the protection of the habitat, that rights of way are maintained to a proper standard.
I congratulate the Secretary of State for Transport and the Department of the Environment because, in conjunction with Wigan metropolitan borough council, they have done considerable work with the British Waterways Board and the Countryside Commission in the north-west. Where public assets are under local authority control, large tracts of public bridleways, footpaths and towpaths are being brought back into public use for the first time in many years. In those areas where such paths are still in use they are being protected for the benefit of the natural environment. That is why I believe that it is important that the Secretary of State supports us, because to do otherwise would oppose Government policy.
I hope that other hon. Members will participate in the debate because it is essential to make it clear to the people of Suffolk that the amendment is a people's amendment. Whatever else happens to the Bill, the proposals in amendments Nos. 25 and 27 are for the people's protection and their maximum use. Therefore, I should be pleased if the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds could suggest whether he and his colleagues in Suffolk would be prepared to have discussions with both the district authority and the county council about ways of upgrading the footpaths in that area and bringing to the public's attention the use of the footpaths and bridlepaths there as well as the use of those areas close to the wetlands.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: May I give the hon. Gentleman two assurances. An arrangement negotiated between the county council and the dock company will mean that more and better footpaths will be provided in the vicinity of the marshes. That is a considerable gain and has been much appreciated by the Suffolk Preservation Society. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has suggested that my colleagues and I in Suffolk should consult the county council, for example, to see whether ways could be found to draw attention to the rights of access. That is a good suggestion and if the county council is minded to take it up I should be well prepared to assist it in my negotiations with the promoters of the Bill so that the concession that the House has sought and to which the promoters have agreed is made more widely known.

Mr. McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution and his positive attitude. In an equally positive attitude may I suggest that if such negotiations take place, he should contact Wigan metropolitan borough council which has a countryside planning unit which is nationally known. I am certain that that unit would be prepared to assist the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and the county council to provide the type of information for which we have been asking.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 11, line 19, after 'if', insert
'in subsection (1) after "highway", where that word thirdly occurs, were inserted the words "or seeking access to the foreshore for any legitimate purpose,".'.

No. 27, in page 11, line 44, after '(iii)' insert
'in section 14(2), after the word "foreshore" insert "or any right of way" and'.—[Sir Eldon Griffiths.]

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 12, line 2, leave out 'Board' and insert 'the Secretary of State'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 30, in page 12, line 5, leave out 'and the Board'.
No. 31, in page 12, line 6, leave out from 'direct' to end of line 7.

Mr. Bennett: When we have heard what the promoters have to say, it may be possible to have separate Divisions on the amendments. I understand that all the amendments refer to navigation safety as a result of works either being completed or being under construction.
Amendment No. 29 sets out to amend clause 10, which in turn amends sections 12 to 17 of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1968. Amendment No. 29 refers to section 16 of the 1968 Act, which deals with lights on tidal works. Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 refer to section 17, which deals with lights on tidal works during construction. The board mentioned in the 1968 Act was the old Board of Trade, but in the amendment that board is the Harwich harbour board. That may well cause some confusion.
After some discussion with the promoters, they suggested that it would not be possible for Ministers to take on functions which, in this sphere, are private functions. However, it is interesting to note that the 1968 Act is littered with references to functions that would be carried out by the Board of Trade. Therefore, it appears to me that, at least in the 1968 Act, it was possible for the Government to oversee the Felixstowe dock and railway company in the operation of its responsibilities.
The proposed legislation suggests that instead of the safety functions being carried out either by Trinity House or the old Board of Trade that responsibility will be transferred to the Harwich harbour board. Certainly the RSPB is not too happy with the idea that those functions should be carried out by that board. I hope that the promoters can explain why the Harwich harbour board is the appropriate body to carry out those functions rather than either Trinity House or the Department of Transport.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The former Member for Ipswich, who was a strong opponent of the Bill, was, on behalf of Ipswich port authority, anxious to find some way to ensure that Felixstowe would not be able to take Ipswich's water or interfere with the navigation of its waters. Therefore, the two authorities got together and decided that the best


arrangement was to have one neutral body, which had an interest in the harbour. It was the agreement between Ipswich and Felixstowe that led to the decision to nominate the Harwich harbour board for this purpose. I should certainly not wish to interfere with a decision that was reached between an authority that was originally opposed to the Bill and a sponsor of the Bill. The arrangement arrived at was good, and both sides are happy with it.

Mr. Bennett: That may explain why the promoters and one of the objectors arrived at that decision, but it does not answer the question that I sought to raise. The RSPB does not feel that it can place a great deal of trust in the Harwich harbour board. What puzzles me is that the hon. Gentleman who is supporting the promoters has not explained why it is necessary to transfer the functions that used to be exercised by the Board of Trade. I understand why we have to modernise and change the name from the old Board of Trade, and I accept that responsibility for that matter should now rest with the Department of Transport, but I cannot understand why we have to take away the Government's function to supervise the safety of either permanent dock features or works undertaken during construction. Secondly, I cannot understand why, if we have to look for a neutral body, we have to take those functions from Trinity House.

Mrs. Mahon: Will my hon. Friend ask the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) how one is elected to the Harwich harbour board and what procedures for accountability are in operation?

Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) heard that intervention and may well wish to come back to it when he has an opportunity to reply to the amendments.
Anyone who considers the area of development will appreciate that it is taking place at the point where the estuary narrows substantially. It is also at the point where ships coming into some of the port facilities at Harwich must turn in the estuary. If the proposals for the new dock developments at Harwich go ahead—I understand that parliamentary approval has just about been given for them—there will be an even greater possibility of ships coming in and using that part of the estuary that is right opposite the area where the development proposed in the Bill, will take place.
We have already discussed the problems of dredging. It is important that we make sure that any work undertaken to develop the quay is adequately lighted and quite clear to anyone navigating in the area. It is important that the lighting is safe and that it does not mislead people on vessels in the channel. It is important that the site is safe while work takes place.
2 pm
I understand from the Bill that the construction can be spread out over a considerable period. Work can start on reclaiming the land anything up to three years before the main work commences. Once any work is started it is important that there is clear lighting on the site. We have to make sure that the people responsible for the lighting and those who supervise safety are not one and the same. I understand that the Harwich harbour hoard will be responsible for some of the lighting, certainly up the centre

of the channel, and that the Felixstowe dock and railway company will be responsible for the lighting on its side of the river.

Mr. Morley: The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1968 says clearly in section 13:
In case of injury to or destruction or decay of a tidal work or any part thereof, the Company shall forthwith notify Trinity House and shall lay down such buoys, exhibit such lights and take such other steps for preventing danger to navigation as Trinity House shall from time to time direct.
The company's responsibility for lighting is made clear. In section 14 it is given the power to
repair and restore the work or any part thereof, or to remove the works and restore the site thereof to its former condition, to such an extent and within such limits as the Board think proper
of tidal works
abandoned or suffered to fall into decay".
The authority has similar powers to ensure access.

Mr. Bennett: Because of the way in which the Bill is framed the functions that were carried out by Trinity House, and in one or two other sections by the old Board of Trade, are to be taken away from those bodies and handed over to the Harwich harbour board. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds believes that the board will not be as good a safeguard of the general public as would Trinity House or the Government. It also believes that it would be far better to retain the responsibility of the Minister, who is answerable in the House, for safety, rather than to hand that over to the Harwich harbour board, as there is no indication that it would be accountable to anybody if the safety measures were criticised.

Mr. McCartney: Has the change to the legislation in respect of Trinity House anything to do with the changes in its structure? I understand that its functions will he split in two: that it will deal with lightships, and that the responsibility for pilots will be transferred to the port authority. Is that of significance to what is proposed in the Bill?

Mr. Bennett: I should certainly like some comment on the matter from the promoters. Labour Members want clear assurances that safety will he uppermost in the construction work and in the development, if sadly the Bill goes through and eventually the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company comes up with the money for the development.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Once again I find myself to a great extent in harmony with what has been said. Clause 10 incorporates a number of provisions that were previously contained in the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1968. Those provisions include a number of standard clauses that relate to the statutory duties of the Secretary of State to control tidal works, in that he is obliged to ensure that tidal works shall not become a danger to navigation. I am sure that the whole House, and no one more so than the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), recognises the importance of the Secretary of State having that absolute duty to prevent new works interfering with navigation.
While I would be perfectly happy to accept amendments Nos. 30 and 31, which deal with the board and the promoters, it is not within my authority as a Back-Bench Member to speak to a matter that touches upon the


statutory functions of a Minister. Therefore, I think that the House is bound to listen to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to say.

Mr. Snape: I am sure that I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that, given the hon. Gentleman's distinguished service at the Dispatch Box, we would be delighted to hear him, if not speaking as a Minister, bring to bear the normal command of the House that he exercised at the time when he was a Minister. Given the hon. Gentleman's responsibility for the Bill, which he has discharged to the best of his ability, we would accept any assurances from him as coming from the right sort of, perhaps I should say, authentic source. We would rely on those assurances at least as much, I would not say more so, as any assurances that we might receive from his right hon. Friend.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It is essential for the conduct of the business of the House, particularly as we have reached agreement on a number of amendments, that I should in no way go beyond the area that I can deliver. I am unable to say to the House that a private Bill is the right way to change the statutory functions of a Minister of the Crown. Private Bills are designed to achieve the purposes for which the private promoters seek the consent of the House. I can accept amendments Nos. 30 and 31, but amendment No. 29 proposes that a private Bill be used to change the statutory functions of a Minister of the Crown. Having served in the Department of Transport and in other Departments, I am bound to say that it is wrong for a private Bill to seek to alter the functions of a Secretary of State.

Mr. Channon: I naturally listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) during the debate on the amendments. I share the view of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) about the ability of my hon. Friend in dealing with the amendments, and I congratulate him on the clear way in which he has described and answered questions about them in the course of a long day. I would like to be as helpful as I can.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we have now passed 2 pm, and as I have been in the House for more than 30 hours, I wonder whether you would confirm, for the convenience of the House, that the business that is scheduled to take place later today is now null and void, and that we shall continue with this Bill? Some of us want to see it on the statute book.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not yet the case. The magic hour in these matters is 2.30 pm.

Mr. Channon: I want to deal first with amendments Nos. 30 and 31. As the House knows, the Bill gives the Harwich Harbour Board a joint say with the Secretary of State in how tidal works shall be lit during their construction. In the case of disagreement, the Secretary of State's decision prevails. The amendments would take out the harbour board and leave the matter entirely to the Secretary of State. In practice, I am sure that any Secretary of State would always seek the advice of the harbour board

before deciding what marking or lighting was required, so if the House decides to accept amendments Nos. 30 and 31 I would be happy for it to do so.
However, I have difficulty with amendment No. 29. The Bill requires the promoters to install on the tidal works, after their completion, such permanent lights as Trinity House or the Harwich Harbour Board may, from time to time, direct. The amendment suggests the substitution of the Secretary of State for the harbour board.

Mr. Morley: I have listened carefully, but I confess that I am not absolutely clear about clause 10(i)(v), which adds the Harwich Harbour Board to Trinity House as an authority with power to direct the company to show lights and marks. I am not sure why the two should be joined together for that purpose.

Mr. Channon: I was just coming to the issue of lighting, which is extremely important in the Harwich area and in all the docks and ports that are open in and around Harwich. They have an extremely good record and have taken a great deal of trouble to install up-to-date equipment in a whole variety of ways. I was impressed when I recently visited the area and discussed safety matters with the ports. The works proposed in the Bill are all within Harwich haven. The Harwich Harbour Board is the local lighthouse authority. It is responsible for navigational safety in the haven.
2.15 pm
The usual practice would be to determine with Trinity House what lights are appropriate so that the Harwich Harbour Board can carry out its safety duties in that area. It is the authority responsible for safe navigation, and as such it must prescribe these lights. Trinity House and the Harwich Harbour Board are, respectively, the statutory general and local lights authorities. If the amendment were accepted, it would remove the Harwich Harbour Board—the local lights authority—and place the responsibility with the Secretary of State. That is not a function that the Secretary of State fulfils in any other port. There is no reason why Felixstowe and Harwich should be treated any differently. Indeed, that would be inadvisable. There is evidence that the Harwich Harbour Board carries out its lighthouse duties efficiently and well, and I therefore advise the House not to accept amendment No. 29. I am however, happy to advise acceptance of amendments Nos. 30 and 31.

Mr. Snape: I am sure that the House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, particularly as he has been gracious enough to accept amendments Nos. 30 and 31. Nevertheless, I want to press him for a moment or two on his refusal to accept amendment No. 29.
There is a considerable depth of feeling among lights authorities about the additional financial burden that falls on them because of the installation and maintenance of lights. Their concern—and that of my hon. Friend in whose name the amendment stands—was to alleviate that burden on the Harwich Harbour Board. It seems a little unfair that we are told to accept the Bill because it is good for employment in the area, and because P and O is investing a considerable amount of money in and around Felixstow——

Mr. Tony Banks: And in the Conservative party.

Mr. Snape: And in the Conservative party, as my hon. Friend reminds me. Yet that commercial organisation will reap the benefit of this investment, both in lights for the area and in their maintenance. That strikes us as unfair. Conservative Members continually lecture us about the need to reduce public expenditure. They lecture us about the wastefulness of local authorities and appear intent on concentrating more and more power in the hands of non-elected bodies. The Harwich Harbour Board will not benefit in any way from the legislation. I hope that, in the spirit of amity that has overcome us, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) will agree with me about that. The hoard probably feels somewhat aggrieved that it might suffer some additional financial loss if amendment No. 29 is not accepted. It is manifestly unfair that the Government, who are trying to reduce public expenditure on local authorities and organisations such as the Harwich Harbour Board, are not prepared to be more sympathetic to the aims of the amendment.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is satisfied with the explanation that he has heard from the Secretary of State. As is customary on these occasions, I shall leave it to my able hon. Friend to decide whether to pursue the matter to a Division. Reasoned and reasonable though the Secretary of State's explanation was, my hon. Friend might feel it necessary to pursue the matter to a Division because of our desire not to impose any financial penalty on the harbour board, for which the benefits of the legislation are nebulous to say the least, and on which the detrimental financial impact of the maintenance of lights and marks in the harbour will primarily fall.

Mr. William O'Brien: I, like my hon. Friends, accept the Secretary of State's statement about amendments Nos. 30 and 31, but I cannot accept the excuse that he gave for not accepting amendment No. 29, which was not valid. It is not good enough to say that it is not the duty of the Secretary of State to intervene in these matters. Amendment No. 29 relates to clause 10(i)(v), which would add the Harwich Harbour Board to Trinity House. That is intended to give it the power to direct the company to show lights and marks and to take other measures to prevent danger to navigation. The amendment would make the Secretary of State the additional change to the proposals, in place of the harbour board.
If there is to be a change—and obviously this is the proposal—what excuse does the Secretary of State have to offer that he should not be involved in any changes? To say that this does not happen anywhere else is abysmally inadequate because we can say that about many things—including the poll tax. No one else is to have a poll tax, but we are to have it. The proposition put forward by the Secretary of State—that because it does not happen anywhere else it should not happen here—is not good enough.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting in his amendment and by his rejection of what the Secretary of State said that he is prepared to put the safety of shipping in the hands of a Secretary of State rather than in the hands of the experts? We greatly respect the experts on harbour lighting and control because they have kept our vessels safe since time immemorial. Is the hon. Gentleman

suggesting that we should take that function out of the hands of the experts and place it in the hands of the Secretary of State? If that is the case, this would be the only port in Britain to be controlled in that way.

Mr. O'Brien: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he has no confidence in the Secretary of State? Perhaps there is some merit in what he says. I hope that he will demonstrate his lack of confidence in the vote because the matter will be decided in the Lobbies.

Mr. Snape: It might be unusual for me to seek to defend the Secretary of State, but it is fair to say that since the appalling tragedy earlier this year in Zeebrugge the Secretary of State has demonstrated his determination to put things right in the way that our maritime industries are operated and supervised. The Opposition ought to demonstrate their appreciation of the right hon. Gentleman's concern by defending him from what was, in effect, a scurrilous and disgraceful attack from his hon. Friend.

Mr. O'Brien: The House ought to take note of the contribution that has just been made by my hon. Friend because it is very important. If the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) feels that the Secretary of State is not the person to be in charge of martime matters, he has every right to pursue the matter with the Prime Minister. I shall support any motion which says that the Secretary of State should resign if he does not have the confidence of Conservative Members.
There must be safety at all times and such safety must remain, despite any change that will take place under the proposals in the Bill. It is against that background that amendment No. 29 is proposed. I hope that the Secretary of State will have a rethink on this. To say that he does not have or that he cannot develop the expertise to ensure that safety is always maintained, is a slur on the Department of Transport. I hope that that matter will be cleared up.
We ought to have regard to other organisations in the area. During his speech on the last group of amendments one of my hon. Friends said that a number of organisations must be consulted. They include local authorities, charitable organisations and organisations that have the good of the area and of the nature reserve at heart. They should be consulted about these issues.[Interruption.]

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether Conservative Members are suffering from champagne withdrawal symptons, but a great deal of conversation is going on. At the very least, it is discourteous to my hon. Friend that Conservative Members are not listening to him.

Mr. Speaker: I agree.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the babble of noise from Conservative Members. I hope that he will continue to look after the interests of Opposition Members who are making contributions. This is an important matter and some of my hon. Friends have been here all night and all yesterday afternoon. It is right that their interests should be safeguarded. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will continue to safeguard our interests. He is our shop steward and I hope that he will continue in that capacity.
There are matters other than safety to be considered, and one of them is oil pollution in the area. The Secretary of State has some responsibility for this matter and has some interest in the issue. It is not good enough to say that his Department is not the one that should monitor oil pollution. The people who live in the area and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have the right to protection. Changes and manoeuvres that will further involve the harbour board should not be permitted and the Secretary of State should take responsibility if there is a change. The Secretary of State should reconsider his position and his last comment and say that he is prepared to accept amendment No. 29.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend has raised the specific issue of oil pollution. In the short debate on amendment No. 29 we have heard that vessels will be turning in the narrowest part of the estuary and that the Harwich development will considerably increase traffic in that estuary. What arrangements has the Secretary of State for Transport made to ensure that adequate stocks of anti-pollutants are maintained in all three ports against the possibility of a major oil spillage in that estuary?

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his important intervention. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am having great difficulty in hearing what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is difficult to try to convince hon. Members when so much noise is going on.
Following my reference to oil pollution, my hon. Friend made an important intervention. I am sure that the Secretary of State will accept that this matter should be considered seriously and in some depth. It is a problem that creates difficulties around our coasts. We do not want oil pollution in the harbours and such pollution must be taken seriously.
Organisations such as wildlife conservation bodies have little confidence in the harbour board, and their interests should be considered. The Secretary of State should consult those bodies about what the changes will bring. If there is to be a change of responsibility in that area, amendment No. 29, which gives responsibility to the Secretary of State, should be accepted.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Dickens: [seated and covered]: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Anticipating that when the House is reassembled after the Division, you will announce to the House that Wednesday's business has been lost, that means that we are still in Tuesday. As Tuesday is normally a day reserved for Prime Minister's questions, and as it is common knowledge that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does so very well and the public like to listen to her in action, will there be any opportunity for us to have another dose of Prime Minister's Question Time today?

Mr. Speaker: It is a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench. I am afraid that I cannot give him any comfort in respect of his request for the Prime Minister's return for further questions, and I shall be

making no announcement about the loss of today's business. We remain on Tuesday's business for the remainder of today.

The House having divided: Ayes 127, Noes 204.

Division No. 64]
[2.28 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Loyden, Eddie


Anderson, Donald
McAllion, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
McCartney, Ian


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Macdonald, Calum


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Battle, John
McNamara, Kevin


Beckett, Margaret
McTaggart, Bob


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Madden, Max


Buckley, George
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Marek, Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Canavan, Dennis
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Clay, Bob
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Clelland, David
Maxton, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Michael, Alun


Corbett, Robin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cousins, Jim
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cummings, J.
Morgan, Rhodri


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morley, Elliott


Dalyell, Tarn
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Nellist, Dave


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
O'Neill, Martin


Dewar, Donald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dixon, Don
Patchett, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Dunnachie, James
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Eastham, Ken
Richardson, Ms Jo


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Rogers, Allan


Fatchett, Derek
Rooker, Jeff


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Flannery, Martin
Rowlands, Ted


Foster, Derek
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Foulkes, George
Salmond, Alex


Fraser, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Galbraith, Samuel
Skinner, Dennis


Galloway, George
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Snape, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Steinberg, Gerald


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Stott, Roger


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Strang, Gavin


Grocott, Bruce
Straw, Jack


Heffer, Eric S.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Henderson, Douglas
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Home Robertson, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Hood, James
Turner, Dennis


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wall, Pat


Hoyle, Doug
Walley, Ms Joan


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wareing, Robert N.


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Illsley, Eric
Wilson, Brian


Ingram, Adam
Winnick, David


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Worthington, Anthony


Lambie, David
Wray, James


Lamond, James
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Leighton, Ron



Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. William O'Brien and Mr. Tony Banks.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)



Lofthouse, Geoffrey





NOES


Adley, Robert
Arbuthnot, James


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alton, David
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Amos, Alan
Ashby, David






Ashdown, Paddy
Hayward, Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Heddle, John


Atkins, Robert
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Batiste, Spencer
Hind, Kenneth


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Holt, Richard


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Benyon, W.
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Boswell, Tim
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bottomley, Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Irvine, Michael


Bowis, John
Jessel, Toby


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Key, Robert


Bright, Graham
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Kirkhope, Timothy


Browne, John (Winchester)
Kirkwood, Archy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Knapman, Roger


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Burt, Alistair
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Butler, Chris
Knowles, Michael


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Knox, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lang, Ian


Carrington, Matthew
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Chapman, Sydney
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Lightbown, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lilley, Peter


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Livsey, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Colvin, Michael
Lord, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
McCrindle, Robert


Cope, John
Macfarlane, Neil


Cormack, Patrick
MacGregor, John


Couchman, James
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Cran, James
Maclean, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Major, Rt Hon John


Curry, David
Mans, Keith


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Day, Stephen
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Maude, Hon Francis


Dicks, Terry
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mills, lain


Dunn, Bob
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Emery, Sir Peter
Monro, Sir Hector


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Moore, Rt Hon John


Fallon, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Farr, Sir John
Neale, Gerrard


Faulds, Andrew
Needham, Richard


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Neubert, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Newton, Tony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Page, Richard


Forth, Eric
Paice, James


Franks, Cecil
Patnick, Irvine


Freeman, Roger
Pawsey, James


Gale, Roger
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gardiner, George
Porter, David (Waveney)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Portillo, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Redwood, John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Riddick, Graham


Gorst, John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Gower, Sir Raymond
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Rowe, Andrew


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Ryder, Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Grist, Ian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Harris, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hawkins, Christopher
Shersby, Michael


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)





Soames, Hon Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D. (B heath)


Speed, Keith
Tracey, Richard


Speller, Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stern, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stevens, Lewis
Ward, John


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Wells, Bowen


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wheeler, John


Sumberg, David
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Summerson, Hugo
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wood, Timothy


Temple-Morris, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)



Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thornton, Malcolm
Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Townend, John (Bridlington)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No.30, in page 12, line 5, leave out 'and the Board'.

No. 31, in page 12, line 6, leave out from 'direct' to end of line 7. —[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to return to a matter that has already been raised several times—the need for a statement to the House on the Government's decision on the proposed merger between British Airways and British Caledonian. We understand, through the usual channels, that a statement will be made in the House of Lords by the unelected Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We were led to believe for a time, through the usual channels, that a statement would be made in this House. We now understand that no statement will be made here. and we regard that as outrageous. We would like the Leader of the House and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to explain this insult to the elected House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter of order. I have no idea whether a statement will be made.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case, when we hold debates in which every hon. Member has a right to participate, that the longer individual hon. Members speak, the more difficult it is for others to get in? More important, we can reach the position that we have reached now. Important Scottish business that we were due to discuss on what is technically tomorrow will not now take place, because we are still on today—which, in some people's minds, was yesterday. We also have the problem of the merger. Dressed as I am, Mr. Speaker, in a kilt, I can claim a clear interest in British Caledonian, which is a very fine Scottish-registered company.
Is it not the case that hon. Members who have made lengthy speeches, many of them lasting well over an hour, and have raised points of order throughout the clay, are the reason that we find ourselves in this position? They are responsible.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Important Scottish business has been lost, a loss that will not be understood by the people of Scotland. Is there any provision for the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for


Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) — to be brought before the House to make a statement explaining why, one week after he promised a major onslaught against the Government backed by the entire parliamentary Labour party, instead of Scottish business being brought to the fore, we have no Scottish business at all?

Sir Hector Monro: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear to everyone in Scotland that the irresponsible attitude of the Scottish Labour party last night and this morning is the sole reason for our losing Scottish questions, the so-called Assembly Bill, the statement on Scottish housing and tonight's Adjournment debate. Scotland knows where responsibility lies: it lies with the Conservative party.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise two points. First, is not the business of the House controlled by the Government? The present Session continues until October 1988. There is therefore plenty of time for this piece of legislation to go through the House of Commons. If they had wanted a Scottish Question Time, would not the Government have the power to allow it? The truth is that they do not want it, because the minority rump does not wish to be asked questions by the majority. Would it not have been possible for a Tory Minister to have moved the closure?
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, is it in your power to instruct Opposition Members representing one of the smallest minority sections in the Scottish political scene—the Scottish National party—to cross the Floor? The sole concern of SNP Members is attacking the Labour party, rather than the Government of the day.

Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the time when we would have been having Scottish questions, but for the absurd behaviour of the Marxists opposite——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman please withdraw that comment?

Mr. Fairbairn: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Come on.

Mr. Fairbairn: The misbehaviour of the Trotskyists opposite.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is even worse.

Mr. Fairbairn: May I ask you this question, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to start again and leave out those phrases.

Mr. Fairbairn: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. We should be having Scottish questions, all of which will be answered anyway, so we are not deprived of the answers by the Secretary of State, who is present with all his Ministers, when only the shadow Secretary of State is present on Opposition Benches. In the debate this morning the Opposition attempted to pretend to try to reach Scottish questions, but how could we have been protected from their filibustering which was aimed at ensuring that we did not reach them?

Mr. Speaker: Let me deal with the Scottish element first. I confirm what the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said——

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I confirm what the hon. Member for Tayside, North said, that today is yesterday and we have indeed lost today's business. The concern of the Chair throughout the night has been to ensure that the debate has been in order. The fact that it has been long-winded is not a matter for the Chair, but it has been perfectly in order.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not a reflection on the Chair for the hon. Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Munro) to describe last night's points of order as frivolous as well as not being points of order? Surely if the Chair accepts a point of order, it is indeed a point of order and is in order. Was not the purpose of last night's points of order to bring out the fact that Sir Jeffrey Sterling, the chairman of P and O, is also the chief adviser to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and to refer to the corruption that was going on last night, in a blatant attempt to buy the votes of hon. Members? Is it not the case that if other people holding public office had conducted themselves in the way which some Conservative Members of Parliament conducted themselves last night, they would have been before the courts today? The truth is that there are now no standards in the House and no one has any authority to lecture anyone about standards in the House after what happened last night.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we have further points of order, may I underline what the hon. Gentleman has said. The points of order that have been put to me so far in these exchanges have not been points of order at all, and whether Sir Jeffrey Sterling happens to be an adviser to anyone is not a matter for the Chair. Points of order put to the Chair should be legitimate points of order that the occupants of the Chair can answer. I can answer none of those questions——

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been able to say that we have lost today's business, but I am not responsible for what goes on outside the Chamber.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you will be aware that over the past three years there has been considerable opposition from Labour Members to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company on the basis that there was a fundamental erosion of environmental standards in the area. We were entitled to use the parliamentary means at our disposal to try to oppose the Bill and save that area of wetland, and to ensure that the British Government fulfilled their international agreements to protect the wetland.
Quite rightly, the Chairman of Ways and Means tabled that business for 7 o'clock last night, but it was the Government who chose to table the business motion at 10 o'clock, which enabled the business to continue after that time. It was possible for the Government, at any time after 10 o'clock, to suspend the business so that today's business on Scotland and other matters could take place. It is clear that it is the Government who have decided that they wish to put through private business in that way. Any criticism should be levelled at the Government's decision to support


the private Bill, not at Opposition Members who have been legitimately exercising their right to oppose it because of the environmental damage that it would cause.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time. I confirm to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that delay is one of the few weapons given to any Opposition, so that was perfectly in order. It was equally in order for the Government to table a suspension motion.

Mr. Harris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise my point of order with you as the recipient of the next issue of "Erskine May" because the introduction is, by tradition, addressed to the right hon.
Speaker of the House of Commons, and to The Speakers of the Commonwealth, within whose hands the priceless heritage of Parliament is securely held".
[Interruption.] No, I am not challenging Mr. Speaker at all. I make my point in all sincerity. Some of us have been here throughout the night. I cannot help observing that, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), practically everyone on Opposition Benches who has raised a point of order was not here at all. Some of us were and I have completed over 30 hours in the House without a break.
Observing the events of last night, I believed — I admit that I am probably biased — that there were deliberate attempts to obstruct the proceedings of Parliament. On two occasions during two Divisions during the night, I had cause to raise with Mr. Deputy Speaker the fact that there appeared to be obstruction in one of the Lobbies. On one occasion Mr. Deputy Speaker was kind enough to send the Serjeant at Arms, who flushed out four hon. Members who had been in the Lobby and who were delaying proceedings.
Be that as it may, the point that I put to you in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, in your capacity as the recipient of the next edition of "Erskine May", is this. We all know that the Clerk of the House is charged with the duty of producing "Erskine May". As there is obviously considerable contention over the events during this parliamentary day, will you charge the editor of "Erskine May" to give an impartial account of the events of the 18 or so hours when the House has been sitting on the Bill? Is it possible to insert that in the next edition of "Erskine May", if only as a means of instruction to the Opposition, who have managed to achieve the almost unattainable in these proceedings, by wiping out their own business by their incompetence and piling chaos on confusion?

Mr. Speaker: The whole House would be better advised——

Mr. Snape: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has raised a point of order about "Erskine May" [Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman kindly listen to the answer as he raised the point of order with me? He will find in "Eskine May" numerous examples of similar occasions to this. It is nothing new. As I have said, this is a private Bill, so it is not a matter of the Official Opposition seeking to do anything. There are many examples of this happening before. The House should get on with the Bill and bring it to a conclusion.

Mr. Snape: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the benefit of hon. Members who have not been at Westminster for as long as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) —he spent some time in another capacity in the House — will you confirm that at 10 pm only a Minister of the Crown can move a motion to suspend the Standing Orders of the House and enable our discussions to continue past that time? Will you also confirm that it is virtually unprecedented for a Minister to move such a motion on private business? Furthermore, was that not the second point of order from the hon. Member for St. Ives on exactly the same point? Did he not move the previous one at 10 minutes past 2 o'clock when he said that because the debate was still under way tomorrow's business had been lost? Is it not deplorable that someone who has spent years in this place, albeit as a hack, does not know the rules of the House and delays business by spurious points of order?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order which are not points of order for me contribute to delays. The House will be best advised now to move on to its next group of amendments.

Clause 14

MODIFICATION OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

3 pm

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 13, line 45, leave out '10' and insert 'five'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 34, in page 14, line 1, leave out from 'Act' to 'and' in line 3.
No. 35, in page 14, line 15, leave out from 'plans' to end of line 17.

Mr. Banks: First, it is not only important Scottish business that has been lost, but my ten-minute Bill on the sale of war toys. I know that the Prime Minister is determined that this Bill will pass and I suspect that her real reason is to thwart my attempt to have these toys prohibited. That is typical of her macho approach to politics and all other matters.
The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has not at any time sought to put its plans through the scrutiny of the normal planning process. Had it done so, these plans would have been rejected by the local planning authority, as all hon. Members realise. Indeed, the Suffolk Coastal district council petitioned against the Bill and opposed it vigorously in Committee.
It is worrying for those of us who have been connected with local government for many years to see private Bills being used as a way of getting round normal planning procedures. It is also disturbing that the Government have set up several urban development corporations which have similar powers and do not need to seek planning permission from local authorities. Local communities are extremely worried that their elected representatives, whether sitting on Tory-controlled or Labour-controlled councils, are not allowed to scrutinise development proposals in the interests of the community that will eventually have to endure the development proposal.

Mr Michael J. Martin: Is my hon. Friend aware that that not only happens south of the


border but that the same happened in Edinburgh when the Tories controlled the regional council? They wanted to drive a road through the centre of Edinburgh and because they knew that they would not get proper planning permission they tried to succeed through a private Bill. They told the Officers of the House lies when they said that the procedure would last only three weeks. It lasted three and a half months. I know because I was the chairman of the inquiry. It is scandalous that public money should be used in such a way to avoid legitimate objections.

Mr. Banks: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's comments. Clearly, this practice has grown up rather disturbingly in recent years and the House should be aware of it. I hope that the Committee looking into the procedures on private Bills will look carefully at private Bills being used as a way of circumventing normal procedures which have been established and accepted for many years.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does my hon. Friend recall that a few hours ago we received certain assurances from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, (Sir E. Griffiths)? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman gave them in all sincerity and honesty. He said that local authorities would be consulted on footpaths, footpath signing, the identification of footpaths and literature and advertisements about footpaths. If companies have been afraid to go to authorities regarding planning matters, which are assuredly decisions for local authorities, it throws into question whether local authorities will be consulted on these other matters.

Mr. Banks: That is a valid point and it throws into question the worth of assurances from Conservative Members and, indeed, the sincerity of the promoters. There are accepted procedures which protect the rights of local people and they are being circumvented. In this particular case we are talking about an extension of normal planning permission, which is given over a five year period, to 10 years. That is the nub of our objection to the Bill and why we tabled this amendment.

Mr. Fatchett: I welcome my hon. Friend's argument about planning procedures. He referred to the inquiry of the Chairman of Ways and Means into private Bill procedures. If planning matters continue to come before private Bill procedures it will raise two questions. First, does my hon. Friend agree that our procedures should enable hon. Members who wish to speak against amendments to have the opportunity to do so? At about 2.30 am or 3 am I gave notice that I wanted to speak against amendment No. 15 on a crucial planning issue, but I was not allowed to do so, presumably because the Chairman of Ways and Means assumed that there was a party political split and that all Labour Members would vote one way and all Conservative Members another. On a private Bill that is not necessarily the case.
Secondly, if we have private Bill Committee procedures does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Chamber should act in a quasi-judicial, objective way on planning matters? In the past 24 hours we have seen a particular company attempt to buy and use influence in this House. That has meant that only Labour Members have been prepared to listen to the arguments.

Conservative Members have not listened to crucial planning and environment matters. They have been wheeled in at particular times to cast their vote in favour of the company.

Mr. Banks: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure will look carefully at his suggestions. I cannot remember whether it is yesterday, today or tomorrow, but some time during the course of calendar Wednesday Members of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, of whom I am one, are due to consider further proposals. As you will understand, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the House long as I wish to attend and raise these points in that Committee.

Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. When he considers the amendment and the private Bill procedure will he bear in mind that those of us who have been present during most of these proceedings have been consistently in difficulty because we are not sure of the precise role of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths)? We have been told on some occasions—those that suit him—that he is in charge of the Bill. On other occasions when it has also suited him, he has told the House that he is not in charge of the Bill. The person in charge of the Bill was described by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds as "that Gummer". I understand "that Gummer" to be the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). He is not only a Minister of the Crown but the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, as such, has a direct ministerial involvement.
Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is not necessarily or exclusively a matter relating to private Bills? It is a private Bill that is ostensibly in the name of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, but the guiding hand behind it is that of the Minister.

Mr. Banks: That point has been raised on many occasions. It is somewhat confusing for Opposition Members. There have been many occasions on which one has considered that the practice and procedure attached to the Bill have been improper. We have had the example of P and O, or its public relations people, trying to arrange champagne receptions. Indeed, from a quick reading of "Erskine May," one would know that such a procedure is close to a breach of parliamentary privilege. No Conservative Member would like to have been found drunk in possession of the Bill during the proceedings.
I do not know who is in charge of the Bill, but I know one thing, and that is that the presence of the Prime Minister tonight, her consistent voting, and the way in which Ministers—the payroll voters—have been here on a private Bill, look exceedingly suspicious. Quite frankly, if we were to suggest that there was an element of political corruption in respect of the Bill, I am sure that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to say that, but Opposition Members have our suspicions.

Mr. Fatchett: I did not realise how important my hon. Friend was in serving on the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. He is obviously a big wheel in the House. It is good that his talents have been recognised. The matter that I put to him relates to planning procedures. My hon. Friend will recall that, at an earlier stage in the proceedings, I raised a point of order about the role of the


Committee that examined the Bill, and particularly about the role of its chairman. I asked whether, if that Committee is supposed to act in a quasi-judicial manner to examine political procedures, it was appropriate for its chairman to be one of the invitees to the champagne and film party that was going on. I considered that that might have been a transgression of the impartiality of that office. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would comment on that matter, in view of his new-found importance in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to comment on it. I cannot relate the remarks made by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) to the amendment, which states:
Page 13, line 45 leave out '10' and insert 'five'.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Banks: I am doing my best in that respect, Mr. Speaker. These points arise out of the amendment. The clause in question clearly can be used by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to circumvent the normal planning procedures that exist in the region. That is why it is a matter of great concern for those who are interested in the procedure relating to private Bills. On the face of it, it seems to be most unwise, if not improper, for someone who has been involved in a quasi-judicial consideration of development proposals to be involved with the actual development. If that happened in local government, there would be a row in the newspapers and everyone would scream, "Corruption." We would have another scandal on our hands. Fortunately, wiser counsels prevailed. I understand that the champagne reception was called off.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When this point arose earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker repeated your ruling that the subject had been exhaustively discussed and should not be raised again. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is raising it yet again.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's point of order helps the matter. I have drawn attention to the fact that the party was cancelled. Let us get on with the amendment.

Mr. Ron Davies: Surely it is not possible, Mr. Speaker, for one of your colleagues to rule that a matter that has been properly and legitimately introduced into the House for debate will never be capable of being introduced at a future time. Surely that is an abuse of the position of Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), who raised the matter, is relatively new here. He inadvertently used the word "ruling". It was certainly not a ruling from the Chair; it was a suggestion, which I repeat. We have heard a great deal about the matter. The whole House wants to get on with the Bill.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us return to the amendment. I call Mr. Banks.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order. I call Mr. Banks.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful that you confirmed that I was in order, Mr. Speaker. Since it is a significant matter in

respect of the procedures of the House, it will not be left untroubled or untried. We shall refer to it from time to time during the course of whatever is left of Tuesday.

Mr. Rogers: Will my hon. Friend enlighten me and other hon. Members in relation to what transpired last night?

Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman was not here.

Mr. Rogers: Of course I was not here. That is why I seek enlightenment.
Will my hon. Friend enlighten me as to what exactly transpired last night? Either the sponsors of the Bill or hon. Members who are anxious that the Bill should get on the statute book laid on a drunken champagne spree——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not allege that hon. Members laid on anything for Members that was likely to be drunken. [Interruption.]

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am dealing with an intervention.

Mr. Rogers: I withdraw that statement, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether the intention was that such a state should be achieved, but I am quite sure that it might well have been achieved later on. I understand that it was free.
Is it proper that such an action could take place within the Palace of Westminster, Mr. Speaker? It was mentioned that planning laws have been circumvented by the Bill. It seems that the whole planning proposition has been circumvented, anyhow. We have heard of bribery and corruption outside the House. For bribery and corruption to take place by laying on sprees for people to make—[Interruption.] Some Conservative Members are muttering that it was cancelled. That is what brought me to my feet. That is the public image that they would like to create. Then someone said, "No, it was not cancelled, it just fell flat."

Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. He may have an opportunity to be called later in the debate. We must get on with the debate.

Mr. Banks: I am able to assist my hon. Friend, but not in the manner in which I should like. I was here in spirit, rather than under the influence of it. I am sure that we shall return to the matter from time to time.

Mr. Grocott: Will my hon. Friend address his remarks to an aspect that, as far as I know, has not yet been discussed — that is the cancellation of the shindig last night? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the amendment, which states:
leave out '10' and insert 'five'.
I ask the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) kindly to get back to the amendment.

Mr. Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the house continues in this manner, it may be felt that an attempt is being made to delay proceedings. I am anxious that we should get on with the business, and I believe that that feeling is shared by the whole House.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I wish to make a genuine attempt, Mr. Speaker, to assist you and the House. It is obvious that there is considerable confusion surrounding the events of


last night, and you have been troubled by some possibly spurious points of order and some unhelpful interventions. Would it be possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to initiate a full investigation into what happened and to make a definitive statement so that we may know whether the charges of corruption and of other things, which I believe have been made wrongly, can be dismissed or substantiated?

Mr. Speaker: I am responsible only for what takes place in the Chamber and for deciding what is in order, not for what happens outside the Chamber. I trust that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will remain in order.

Mr. Banks: Of course, Mr. Speaker. I listen always to what you say, and I do not think that I have strayed out of order. I feel that I have been in order throughout. Some of the interventions may have touched on the margin of order, but that is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, rather than for me. I have delivered only three lines of my speech so far.

Mr. Grocott: I wish to put a serious question to my hon. Friend that is related to the clause. Throughout the night we have been told repeatedly by the supporters of the Bill that we should take account of the fundamental good will and intentions of the Bill's sponsors and supporters more than anything else. if the sponsors and supporters made a promise to a number of hon. Members last night to provide hospitality, an offer that was withdrawn at short notice for reasons that we do not know, what credence can we give to the assurances that the company has given on a range of other matters that are of perhaps greater importance in terms of the Bill than the offer of hospitality? If we cannot give any credence to the promises and assurances that we have been made and given, the assurances that have been given in the Chamber, especially by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), are not worth the Hansard pages on which they will appear.

Mr. Banks: A private Member's Bill should not be used as a means to allow developers with enough money to employ parliamentary agents and members of the parliamentary Bar to obtain permissions from Parliament that would not be obtained through the normal democratic planning processes. It has been decided to try to steamroller the Bill through its various stages on the Floor of the House, and it was decided that Conservative Members would be entertained at a reception at which champagne would flow like water and films would be shown. It was reported in the newspapers that when Tory Back Benchers asked what sort of films would be shown, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds replied, "What films do you want?" The mind boggles, knowing the artistic tastes of some Conservative Members.

Mr. McCartney: May I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the role of the Department of the Environment, or the lack of it? Over the past two years the Department and the Government generally have supported the EEC circular on environmental impact analysis. It is stated that such an analysis should take place before planning procedures and large-scale industrial developments are embarked upon. Only recently has the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), the Under-Secretary of

State for the Environment, given permission for the local authority with responsibilities in my constituency to initiate such an assessment prior to the implementation of planning procedures.
The two approaches that the Government support are the voluntary procedure and the parliamentary procedure, neither of which has been used in this instance. Indeed, neither of these approaches has been pressed upon the company. Instead, a private Member's Bill has been introduced. With that single act, all the planning procedures and consideration prior to determination to proceed with a major planning application have been lost to the local community, the district council, the county council and all other interested parties. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that he will bring this abuse to the notice of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, bearing in mind that the Government have an obligation, following the EEC circular, to introduce environmental impact analyses?

Mr. Banks: Certainly I shall give my hon. Friend such an assurance. He has raised a serious matter and it is clear that he has extensive knowledge of it. It is an issue that is worthy of a speech in itself rather than a short intervention. A good speech is always worth two airings at least.

Mr. David Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the ill-fated passage of the Bill through the House began when my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) saw that normal planning procedures were being circumvented by the promoters and declined to serve in Committee? Is my hon. Friend aware also that that caused something of a furore? When I was appointed to the Committee, I, too, refused to serve. The establishment of the House then decided to bring the issue to the Floor of the House and to change the rules. All the business that we have had about wining and dining last night has arisen only because we learned of it by accident. I was inadvertently given an invitation to attend, and perhaps that is why everything fell flat. It is possible that, if I had not received the invitation, the function would have gone ahead in secret. We know the throats which the company wanted to water last night within the precincts of the House.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the circumvention of normal planning procedures and abuse of the House had brought the House into disrepute? We must find some way of having our just arguments considered again by the powers that be in the House.

Mr. Banks: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will not be tempted to follow that line, which has nothing to do with the amendment. Perhaps the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) have some merit in them, but they do not relate to the amendment. I ask the hon. Member for Newham, North-West to confine himself to the amendment.

Mr. Banks: I agree, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that you would admit that it was an exciting intervention and an inviting one for me to follow. However, I understand what you say, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not be taking up my hon. Friend's invitation. Having made rather slow progress with my speech on amendment No. 33, I could murder a bottle of Taitinger 1980.
Suffolk Coastal district council would have opposed the development that now arises in the Bill had it had the opportunity through the normal planning procedures to do just that. It is a serious matter because the district council will achieve benefits of some enormity as a result of the Bill's passage in the form of employment and rate revenue. It is on that basis—[Interruption.] There is a buzz in the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, that is not linked to my speech. I should be most grateful if one of my hon. Friends were to intervene to tell me the reason for the excitement. I know that it cannot be my speech that has produced it, for even I am bored with it. However, I shall continue boring myself and perhaps others as well.
As I have said, Suffolk Coastal district council would have opposed the development that is proposed within the Bill. It is improper for a private Member's Bill to be used as a way of circumventing democratic planning machinery. When planning permission is granted, either by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State on appeal, it lasts for only five years. That duration is laid down in section 41 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I know that that Act is close to the hearts of all hon. Members on both sides of the House and that it is not necessary for me to rehearse all the detailed provisions of the measure. It is a well-established and accepted feature of the planning system, a system that has saved the countryside from many, although not all, ravages since the parent Act was introduced in 1947.
If the development does not begin within the five years laid down by the Act, the permission lapses and a fresh application has to be submitted to the local planning authority. That arrangement allows the local planning authority to respond to changing circumstances and attitudes and it might refuse a second application for a site for which it had previously been minded to grant approval.
I hope that I have the attention of the House on an important matter. I suspect that something is about to happen, even if it is only a trap door that will open beneath me.

Mr. Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is now six and a half hours since we raised with you a point of order arising out of the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was announcing to a press conference his decision on the important question of the proposed merger of British Airways and British Caledonian but that no Minister from his Department was prepared to come to the House to give an explanation of that decision. We felt that that was a slight and an insult to the House, but we understand your view on that occasion that there was no action that you could take to compel a Minister to come to the House.
I wish now, Mr. Speaker, to draw to your attention a further development. I understand that the Secretary of State is even now responding to a private notice question on this very topic in another place. That adds insult to injury. There can be no doubt that this is an important matter. It goes to the heart of the Government's competition policy and aviation policy. It is of prime importance to the 25,000 jobs that will be affected. Information has been given to a press conference and has been widely debated in the media, and answers are now being given by the Secretary of State in another place.
We understand why the Secretary of State cannot come to this House. We regret that. However, we see no reason

why the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has taken his place, should not he prepared to make the same statement to the House and be subjected to questions on it. I understand that the Government maintain that there is no precedent for such a statement. It is the Government who have put us in this unprecedented position by voting against the motion to adjourn Tuesday's business so that we could proceed to Wednesday's business. We understand the Government's embarrassment and the reluctance of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to be taken to account for the Government's decision.
It is bad enough that the Secretary of State should be making the statement in another place; but it beggars belief that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should remain determined not to subject himself to questions from hon. Members. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to prevail upon the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to honour his obligations to the House and to make the statement that is urgently required.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a matter for the Government; it is not a matter of order. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is here, but I cannot compel him to rise.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Opposition have placed themselves in a certain difficulty. They appear to have taken a somewhat excessive interest in a Bill to develop Felixstowe docks and have extended the debate to such a length that they are unable to invite you to consider a private notice question or any of the other procedures that might have been open to them.
Having returned from a conference abroad, I came to the House this morning to find out what the arrangements were for a statement that I intended to make this afternoon on space policy, only to find the Opposition engaged in discussing the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. I have been here ever since.
I listened to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) explaining that he has ruled himself out of trying to get a private notice question in this House to match the private notice question which has been asked in another place. If the Opposition wreck the procedures of the House, they cannot expect their Lordships in another place to miss hearing a statement about British Caledonian.
However, I am always willing to help facilitate the business of the House. The hon. Member for Dagenham is an ingenious man. He could find ways of raising the matters that he wishes within the rules of order of the House. If he thinks a little harder, I have no doubt that he will find them. He has raised a point of order for you, Mr. Speaker. He will have to ponder the problem with which he and his hon. Friends have faced themselves.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that it is entirely in order for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to seek the leave of the House to make a statement similar to the statement that is being made in the House of Lords by the Secretary of State? Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster now take the opportunity to do that which is in order and which does not bring the House into disrepute or treat it with disdain, as he proposes at present?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been asked a question which I shall answer. It would be in order, but at the end of business, to ask for a statement. It is not possible to obtain a statement in the middle of a debate. As the hon. Member knows, there are procedures which would enable him to overcome the difficulty. It is not for me to advise him on tactics. At the end of the debate on the Bill it would be possible for the Minister to make a statement.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the customs of the House have been called into question with you, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly the custom of the House that statements should be made on the same day in the two Houses. I am glad to see the Opposition Front Bench agreeing. But we are not in the same parliamentary day as the other place. If the House had adjourned before 2.30 pm, we would have been in the same parliamentary day as the other place. We are now in the parliamentary day that commenced at 2.30 pm in the afternoon of 10 November. Therefore, the same parliamentary day as the 11th does not commence until after the present proceedings have terminated.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I confirm what the hon. Member has said. That is our dilemma.

Mr. Dobson: We acknowledge the peculiar procedural point that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has made. It would bring the House into further disrepute if anyone were to suggest that such preposterous points of order should prevent the elected House of Commons from having the opportunity to question the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on an important matter affecting the future of the British aviation industry and the jobs of 25,000 people.
Although at times it may be customary for Ministers to make statements at the end of a debate, it is within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, mine and that of other hon. Members that sometimes Ministers have thought it appropriate to intervene in the middle of business, provided that they have the leave of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. It is not customary to intervene in the middle of a debate, unless it is a matter of national emergency or something of that sort. This is not such a matter.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Friday mornings, Ministers often intervene to make statements at 11 o'clock. It is arrogant of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to sit laughing on the Government Front Bench instead of carrying out his responsibilities to the House.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that, on Fridays, the time for statements is 11 o'clock. That is because it is in the Standing Orders.

Mr. McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be a gross discourtesy to the House and to all those hon. Members who have been present for the debate on the Bill if the Opposition, who have filibustered throughout the day, were allowed to continue to filibuster, so that it would be even later before we concluded the business before the House? It appears that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has offered the Opposition a statement when the business is finished. It would be

grossly discourteous to those hon. Members who have been here for a long time not to complete their business and then hear the statement. Perhaps Opposition Members want to get home to their beds again, but we are willing to stay.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you saying that it is possible for Ministers to make statements only at the end of business? If the Minister asked for permission, would it be possible for him to make a statement before then?

Mr. Speaker: Our normal practice is that an emergency statement would be made at the end of business.

Mr. Gould: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster sought your permission to make a statement now, you would grant that permission? Would it be perfectly in order for him to do so?

Mr. Speaker: If there was another motion before the House to set aside the business, I would do that. But that is not the case. We are in the middle of discussing a Bill.

Dr. Moonie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for Ministers to come here and deliberately mislead the House into thinking — [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Of course, I withdraw the suggestion that he could possibly deliberately mislead the House. However, yesterday evening, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) overheard the Prime Minister saying to the Leader of the House in the Corridor, "That is it, then. We carry on and lose tomorrow's business." Is it in order for Conservative Members to suggest that Opposition Members were responsible for losing Wednesday's business?

Mr. Speaker: Once we began to discuss in this place what may have been said privately elsewhere in the building, we would be in a lot of trouble.

Mr. Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that my hon. Friends have been pressing hard for a statement on the British Caledonian-British Airways merger. May I ask for your guidance on the possibility of a statement on the White Paper on Scottish housing, which has just been published today? May I put on record again the reason why that statement has not been given? When we moved the adjournment of the debate on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, the Secretary of State for Scotland and all his hon. Friends went into the Lobby to vote against it, to ensure that Scottish business would not be discussed.
3.45 pm
Some of us take a poor view of the fact that the Secretary of State is now appearing on every media outlet that he can lamenting the fact that he cannot give a statement or answer questions. Perhaps we can do nothing about question time today, but if there was good will, and if the Secretary of State lived up to his protestations that he wants to make a statement on Scottish housing, could he not come, with the consent of the House, and make that statement? It is bad for the parliamentary process that a Minister, having voted to gag himself and destroy his business, should then parade the idea that he had been prevented from making a statement. I want to help the right hon. and learned Gentleman out of his difficulties, and I ask for your assistance, Mr. Speaker. Could not the


Secretary of State make the statement that he alleges he wants to give, but which he has connived at ensuring is impossible under our normal rules of business?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order. It it a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Harris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Presumably with your permission, I understand that it has become the practice that, at the start of a new Parliament, the Clerks are kind enough to give some instructions on basic procedure to new Members. The House is in some difficulty because of the lack of knowledge of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. We understand that it is a new Front Bench, and we have had two examples of that during the past few minutes. The point of order made by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) in relation to the British Caledonian-British Airways merger was based on completely wrong information and a complete lack of grasp of the procedures of the House. We have now heard a point of order from the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, who has made a fool of himself twice during the past few hours.
For the sake of the efficiency and smooth running of the House, which we all want, perhaps the Clerks could give a crash course on procedure and the workings of the House to the members of the shadow Cabinet, especially its new members.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I always try to remind the Leader of the House of his responsibilities. Would it help you if, to clarify the position in terms of ministerial statements at the close of business, the Leader of the House discharged some of his responsibilities and told the House when we could expect a statement on trade and industry, and especially a statement on Scottish homes?
The Secretary of State is appearing on the media belabouring the point about who lost the business and what happened earlier today. He is bemoaning the fact that he could not make a statement in the House because the business was lost. But he voted for the loss of that business. I appeal through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the House to tell us when a statement will be made. Hon. Members have responsibilities to Committees and would wish to be available to hear statements that may be made at the appropriate time. Will you use your good offices to tell the right hon. Gentleman that that approach would benefit hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. A serious point has been raised, but it is not a matter for the Chair. The Leader of the House will have heard what has been said. For reasons that I have already stated, it is not possible to have a statement in the middle of this debate. Surely the sensible course for the House would be to continue with the debate and to bring it to a conclusion, so that many of the possibilities now being canvassed could come about. It is difficult to envisage how that could happen in any other way.

Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members had to go to another place to hear a very important statement—[Interruption.] I know of at least one hon. Member who had to do that. Surely that is to be deplored.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to seek your advice. I have been here since the start of business some 25 hours ago. More than 120 of my hon. Friends have been here throughout the night, while at times only 20 Opposition Members have been present. There are now many more Opposition Members in the Chamber. We are becoming confused because, at two or three minute intervals, the shadow Leader of the House, the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have all asked for statements. If the debate on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill were to be concluded rapidly — for example, by the Opposition desisting from the filibustering tactics that they have employed for the past 25 hours—we could then hear the important statements—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I will not withdraw. Opposition Members do not like to admit that debating wildlife for two hours at a time is filibustering. They do not recognise the meaning of the word.
Would it be in order for talks to take place between the usual channels? Could not the Opposition agree a programme with the Government — and then get their Members to stick to it — so that we could rapidly conclude the debate and hear the important statements?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Many of our problems—and this is a problem—could he resolved through the usual channels. That would be the sensible way to proceed, and I hope that that will happen.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, requested a statement on Scottish homes. During the weekend, the Minister with responsibility for housing in Scotland said publicly on television that a statement would be given to Parliament. From his television statement, I understood that the proposals were ready to be submitted to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] Hon. Members may say that, but many of my constituents are in Scottish Special Housing Association or in Housing Corporation units allocated through the community-based housing associations. Any proposals would affect their livelihoods. If information is available, surely the Leader of the House could make arrangements for the appropriate Minister to make a statement.
On the question of British Caledonian, the Minister constantly tells us that the Scots complain about unemployment and that he is doing his best for employment prospects. Surely he knows that many employees of British Caledonian and British Airways are worried about what will happen. Therefore, would it not help the House if both statements were made now?

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance and personal protection. As you know, I was most fortunate in drawing the Adjournment debate for tonight — or last night, or tomorrow, whichever it is. The Minister responsible for sport and I have an important engagement on the Floor of the House, and we are entitled to fulfil that engagement — important though British Caledonian and Scottish affairs may be.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he may get his Adjournment debate—I hope.

Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do we not operate in this House both under Standing


Orders and precedent? Indeed, some Opposition Members believe that we were sent here to create precedent. Is it not reasonable, therefore, that the Ministers responsible for the two statements for which we have called should come to the Chamber? Given the sort of Bill with which we are dealing—and we clearly have the time to deal with it—statements could be taken either now or later this afternoon, but not at the end of business. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition, and I appeal to you as a most reasonable man.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a way out of this difficulty. Although it is not for me to suggest it to the House, the House would be wise to take it.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your wish that the whole problem should be sorted out through the usual channels—and we believe that that would be best, rather than interminable alleged points of order—would it not help if you suspended the sitting for a quarter of an hour to enable the usual channels to consider the matter?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a very wise suggestion, and I think that it would be equally wise for the usual channels to get together while I call an hon. Member to speak to the Bill. In that way we could proceed with the business. I therefore call Sir Eldon Griffiths.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: rose——

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a Front-Bench spokesman and should set an example to other hon. Members.

Mr. Rogers: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to be forced to take further action on this matter. I call Sir Eldon Griffiths.

Mr. Rogers: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to take further points of order. I agree with what was said by the shadow Leader of the House — it is a matter for the usual channels to resolve.

Mr. Rogers: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I order the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: rose——

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rogers: I am raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that if he does not obey the Chair, I shall have to take further action that I would very much regret.

Mr. Rogers: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat, I would very much regret having to take further action.

Mr. Rogers: Do what you like Mr. Speaker —[Interruption.]

Sir Eldon Griffiths: rose——

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a Front-Bench spokesman. I know that we are all in an excited state, but the shadow Leader of the House has made a sensible and wise suggestion, with which I agree. Indeed, I hope it will come about. While discussions are taking place, we should get on with the debate and I call Sir Eldon Griffiths again.

Mr. Rogers: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I order the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. I say to him again——

Mr. Rogers: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman again that if he disobeys the Chair he will have to withdraw from the House for the remainder of today's business.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It might be for the convenience of the House——

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order on this matter.

Mr. Heffer: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said that I am not taking any more points of order.

Mr. Heffer: rose——

Mr. Speaker: No. I call Sir Eldon Griffiths.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: In order that the House may make some progress, it might be advantageous for me to reply briefly——

Mr. Heffer: rose——

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I want briefly to respond to the points made by the movers of the amendments.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: No.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The effect of amendment No. 33 would be to extend the period.

Mr. Heffer: rose——

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am referring to the period of time during which the company could construct——

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell — [Interruption.] I call Sir Eldon Griffiths.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It would be unreasonable to ask the company to accept the amendment because the project has a long lead time——

Mr. Heffer: (approaching the Mace): On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It would be unreasonable to ask the company——

Mr. Heffer: (standing by the Mace): On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman get back to his place?

Mr. Heffer: Perhaps I can have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I will give the hon. Gentleman a point of order, but I must say to him before he begins that he is a Member of long standing in this place and it is an absolute abuse to behave in this way.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Sit down, for God's sake.

4 pm

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was about to say that, since the House has now reached high emotional levels, some of which I have witnessed many times over the years, it is up to you, Mr. Speaker, to solve the problem. On each previous occasion, the then Mr. Speaker suspended the sitting of the House for a brief period. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of the House, the nation and the reports that go out of the House, to suspend this sitting for a quarter of an hour.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to do that, for the very reason that I mentioned. The only reason for suspending the House is if things get so out of order that we cannot continue. It is absolutely disgraceful that Members of the House should behave in this way when their own Front Bench has suggested that the matter can be resolved through the usual channels. There is no need, against that background, to have a suspension of the House.

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to take a point of order from the hon. Gentleman. Sit down, please.

Mr. Rogers: Why will you not, Mr. Speaker, take a point of order from me when you are prepared to take them from other hon. Members? I have been sent here by my constituents, the same as everyone else. Members of my Front Bench have told me to sit down, but all I want from you is a reasonable response and the courtesy that you extend to other hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman again that if he rises and talks to me that way, he will be out of the Chamber for the rest of today's sitting. If he does it again, he will be named.

Mr. Gould: I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.
I move the motion because it would be very much for the convenience of the House if we were to have a statement from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, not only because the House is entitled to a statement but because it gives the lie to the line that I believe that the Minister has been peddling on the media throughout the day to the effect that he is somehow prevented from making that statement. I believe that, Mr. Speaker, as you yourself have confirmed, by that device we can now ensure that no obstacle can be argued to have been placed in the Minister's way in meeting his obligations to the House.
Of course we need this important matter, which has now been explained to the press, to the parties to the merger bid, to another place, and, indeed, to everybody in the country other than to the House, to be explained by the Minister in circumstances in which he will be subjected to questions from the House.
The reason we need that statement is not only that the matter involved is extremely important, but that the

statement, so far as we understand it, and the decision made by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is an extremely muddled statement which leaves substantial parts of Government's policy in disarray—notably the Government's competition and aviation policies.
We need to know from the Minister whether there remains any shred or tatter of the previously applying competition policy. Is it still the case that competition remains the only criterion which lies at the base of competition policy? Is not that now manifestly not the case since competition has so clearly been set aside in this instance? Are we not entitled to reach the conclusion that the only basis on which we can now predict where the Government will go on takeover bids of this sort is on the basis that we identify who and where are the Government's political friends?
Is not aviation policy also left in a state of considerable confusion? Does not the present situation arise because the Government have completely abandoned their own aviation policy set out clearly as recently as 1984 in their own White Paper and committed to the strategy of a major second carrier? Has not the Government's anxiety to fatten up British Airways in preparation for privatisation destroyed that strategy by cutting the ground from beneath British Caledonian? The fact is that British Caledonian is no longer viable. It no longer has an independent future. It would be disastrous for the British aviation industry if it were taken over by a foreign airline. The only option, the irresistible logic, is that one should accept the merger with British Airways. But that reflects no credit on the Government. It reflects solely the confusion and inconsistency of their own policies.
Given that competition policy has been so clearly laid aside in reaching this decision, is it not right that the Opposition should ask what account has been taken of the consumer interest and what consumer protection now subsists? What has the Minister to say about the level of consumer services, which until so recently he said depended on the level of competition, when he has now so clearly extinguished the competition that would provide that better level of service?
What account has been taken of article 86 of the treaty of Rome? What reference has been made to the European Commission about competition policy? Will the Minister confirm that British Airways, although voluntarily giving up some of its licences and slots, is nevertheless committed to apply for those licences and slots again? What view will the Civil Aviation Authority and the Government take when that application is made? If the application succeeds, does that not reinforce the point that no competition is built into the solution? If the application fails and those routes, licences and slots are passed to other operators, what is left of the logic of the merger which, surely, could only proceed on the basis that the combined operations of British Caledonian and British Airways would enable the merged British Airways to operate as a megacarrier in the world international market?
If the reversal of Government policy which lies behind this decision is not to be the consequence of a muddle which involves competition and aviation policies, the Minister had an obligation to respond and to explain the difficulties and confusions. That explanation is required not least because it has been given elsewhere. It is required by the House and by all those whose jobs and livelihoods depend upon the continued viability of this airline.
Unless the Minister can explain how the decision has been reached and how it is meant to secure the objectives of Government policy and the jobs of 25,000 people, Labour Members will believe that he has deliberately resisted his obligations to explain that policy because he knows that he cannot do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It might be for the convenience of the House, before I call the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if I say that it is legitimate in a debate of this kind to canvass what the Front Bench has questioned the Chancellor about. In order that as many hon. Members as possible may be called, I ask for brief contributions, please. It might be for the advantage of the House if I say that the debate should not continue beyond 5·15 pm, when we can resume the other business.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The House was plainly in difficulty a few moments ago and, as you so sensibly suggested, Mr. Speaker, the usual channels may have helped us find the means of resolving that.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has spoken on this motion to adjourn to raise the question of the British Airways and British Caledonian merger. I do not want to go back over the difficulties that were raised in the House a few moments ago or to raise them again, but I should like to make it clear that there was no question of the Government avoiding making statements this afternoon. We were in a procedural difficulty. The other House has not had a statement. It has seen an answer to a private notice question.
As I said earlier, when I arrived this morning, anticipating that we would be embarking on Wednesday's business, I had hoped to make arrangements to make a statement to the House on space policy and the results of the European Space Agency meeting. Had you, Mr. Speaker, granted a private notice question in this House, I should have expected to have replied to that. However, we got into the procedural difficulties of a few moments ago which, perhaps, can be satisfactorily resolved. I should make it clear that that means that, unlike a statement, I shall not be getting up and down to answer the responses of those hon. Members taking part in what, in effect, will now be a small debate within the rules of order as you, M r. Speaker, have decreed.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Corporate and Consumer Affairs the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) has been closely involved in the decision and if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the debate, he will seek to answer the various queries that will, no doubt, arise during the debate.
With the assistance of the House, perhaps I might proceed to give the House a factual description of the current position. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the proposed merger between British Airways plc and British Caledonian plc was published at nine o'clock this morning. First, I congratulate the MMC on completing its report on this complex issue within three months.
After assessing the balance between advantages and disadvantages of the merger proposals as finally developed, the commission concluded that the merger may

be expected not to operate against the public interest. In the absence of an adverse public interest finding by the commission, there are no powers for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take action on the report.
As is clear to all right hon. and hon. Members who read the report, the commission bore very much in mind proposals that British Airways developed during the course of the inquiry to answer the anxieties of the commission. The proposals finally put forward to the commission by British Airways are much more extensive than the proposals that were on the table before the reference was made. I will set out the key points in British Airways' ultimate proposals because they go to the heart of what the hon. Member for Dagenham was talking about a few moments ago when he expressed anxieties about competition policy and even the application of the treaty of Rome and the powers of the commission.
4.15 pm
British Airways considerably developed its proposals during the course of the commission's consideration. In its final proposals, first on licences, British Airways will return within a month of merger all British Caledonian's licences on domestic routes, and British Caledonian's licences to operate 10 European routes. Other routes. currently operated by British Caledonian, will be submitted to a review by the Civil Aviation Authority. Although British Airways may reapply to the CAA for reissue of licences, British Airways undertakes not to rely on its rights as an incumbent in reapplying. It also undertakes not to oppose applications from other airlines for licences on the great majority of routes, especially on all domestic routes, all European routes—except those to Italy, and perhaps Portugal—and all routes to the United States and Canada. British Airways will withdraw in the same time scale all British Caledonian's pending appeals against Air Europe licences on eight European routes.
On the other problem of the so-called slots especially at Gatwick, British Airways will surrender a minimum of 5,000 slots at Gatwick. Slots associated with licenses returned by and not reissued to British Airways will be surrendered. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission estimated that this could release as many as 20,000 slots at Gatwick if none of the licences returned is reissued to British Airways.
So far as airport services are concerned, British Airways will continue to make these available without discrimination to other airlines currently served by British Caledonian. The commission considered those proposals and that the effect of the merger on competition would be reduced considerably by them, especially through the return of licences and slots. The position of the merged airline at Gatwick will be modified considerably, and opportunities for the growth and development of other airlines will be correspondingly increased.
For our part, the Government have made it clear that, in the event of a successful offer by British Airways for British Caledonian, we expect British Airways' proposals to be implemented in full. If, at any future time, concerns arise about the competitive situation in the airline industry, we have powers available under the competition legislation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority also have powers for the regulation of the civil aviation industry. If


the merger goes ahead, the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority has undertaken to report to the Secretary of State for Transport a year later about its implementation on the basis proposed.
As I explained earlier, at this stage my right hon. and noble Friend has no legal powers to intervene as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is satisfied that, on the basis now proposed, the merger may not be expected to operate against the public interest. I hope that the House will agree that, from the point of view of the consumer—as the hon. Member for Dagenham has just reminded us, that is our prime concern in all our policy statements and it remains so — and from the point of view of competition policy, we are now faced with a different situation, compared with the original proposal. Things have moved on a long way since my right hon. and noble Friend acted on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading to refer this matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission three months ago. The commission has satisfied itself about the fears of a potential threat to charter operators at Gatwick and of an over-powerful position in the market and of its other anxieties. The Government have no legal powers to intervene and see no need to do so. The next steps are now for the companies themselves to decide upon.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I know from using airports, especially Glasgow, that many of BCal's staff are worried about being swallowed up by British Airways staff. I should like to know whether the Minister has looked into the job prospects for the smaller company's employees.
Services from Glasgow and Edinburgh consist of British Midland Airways Ltd. going to Heathrow, a British Airways shuttle also going to Heathrow, and British Caledonian going to Gatwick. The advantages are obvious because travellers in Glasgow and Edinburgh—I am not familiar with Aberdeen—have a good choice of ways of travelling to London. Those who are involved in international travel can proceed to other destinations. Will the Minister assure us that those services will be improved rather than curtailed? Will he consider the possibility of expanding the excellent service that BCal provides to enable the business community — I declare an interest—to get to Gatwick and catch a direct train from Gatwick to Victoria? Good connections make a big difference to those who travel long distances.
It is scandalous that international travellers should be packed like sardines on the underground service when going to Heathrow from the centre of London. That applies not only at busy tourist times, but even at this time of the year. It is deplorable that international travellers are expected to travel in cramped conditions, shoulder to shoulder, from the centre of London out to Heathrow. Such travel does not help British Airways or British Caledonian and it certainly does not encourage the tourist industry.

Sir Peter Emery: I remind the House that this is a dilatory motion. I hope that it does not become a precedent for Government statements on dilatory motions. That would be entirely contrary to what has happened before. It would be bad if, every time we wanted a Government statement, the Opposition could move such a motion. I hope that it will be made clear that this is not a precedent because that would be disadvantageous to both sides of the House.
Having said that, I wish to ask two questions about the report. It appears that we no longer have two international airlines, but a single British carrier. What will happen about air service agreements concerning dual entry negotiated with foreign nations on the assumption of two British airlines and two foreign airlines coming in and out of Britain? Will it mean that British Airways will be asked to relinquish routes held by British Caledonian so that they can be given to a second British airline? The routes may be to Hong Kong, Tokyo or Los Angeles. Will those routes now be made available to Virgin or to any other company which appeals to the Government? That is of importance, but it is not made clear in the report.
Secondly, does the report mean that British Airways and British Caledonian, now combined as a single British Airways, will be able to change slots and routes as they wish? Does it mean that British Airways can move some of its international flights from Heathrow to Gatwick or from Gatwick to Heathrow? That might have considerable effect on the arrangements made with other international airlines coming into Gatwick. If those airlines saw that their competition was being moved from Gatwick to London, they might also ask to be moved to London. That international aspect is not dealt with, either in the statement or in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. I hope that the Minister can deal with those two matters, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, before 5.15. It would be useful because that information does not now exist.

Mr. David Lambie: The Minister's statement is yet another example of a fudged decision by a British Government. In the last 20 years, the British airline industry has suffered from successive Governments who, instead of making definite decisions, have fudged them.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn, (Mr. Martin), I am interested in what will happen to air travellers from the north of England and from Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh. I always thought that British Airways was a British airline. Now it is a London airline, dealing with international passengers and serving London, and London alone.
The Minister said that the merger was in the public interest. It is not. It is in the interests of British Airways shareholders, Lord King and people who stay in the London area. The rest of us have been thrown to the wolves for so-called private competition.
This morning, listening to the radio, I heard that silly gentleman, the noble Lord, Lord Young——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not cast reflections of that kind on a Member of the other House, who is also a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Lambie: I apologise. I was just speaking from the heart and sometimes one can get into trouble when one does that here.
This morning I heard the noble Lord, Lord Young, state that because of competition he had been able to take breakfast on the shuttle from Glasgow to London. After having said that we were to have competition between British Airways, British Midland Airways and British Caledonian, all that Lord Young could say today was that he was able to have breakfast on the Glasgow shuttle.
I do not want breakfast on the Glasgow shuttle. I do not want a meal on any short journey between Glasgow


or Edinburgh and London. What I want is a cheaper fare. Competition has not reduced the fare from Glasgow to London. British Caledonian loses £7 million on the Glasgow route. British Midland Airways and British Airways are supposed to compete. They are like the petrol companies — they compete on anything but price. Air travellers want a reduction in price, but competition has not led to any reductions in the cost of travel between Glasgow or Edinburgh and London. Fares have gone up every year, in spite of competition.
Government Members are always talking about competition, but after an initial burst the entrepreneurs reach a cosy agreement so there can be no competition. The merger is a disaster for the Scottish people. We are being left to the entrepreneurs.
When I met Air Europe representatives, I asked whether that company would be willing to take up the British Caledonian routes from London to Scotland. They made it clear that they certainly would not take up those routes. So who will get the routes?
This is another disaster for Scotland. We lost Scottish Question Time today. We do not matter in this House, although the Scots form the major group in the House. The sooner Scottish Members revolt in the House — because they will never get proper treatment here—the sooner they will have a Government in Scotland for the Scottish people who can debate their own airline instead of British Airways, which is an airline for London.

Mr. Graham Bright: I congratulate the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on making such a speedy decision. I hope that it will set an example for the future. The outcome is interesting and exciting, particularly for the independent airlines. It seems from the statement that British Airways is not only to relinquish some routes but to put other routes on the table for review by the Civil Aviation Authority. That is the fairest possible way of behaving. I am amazed that British Airways has agreed to it because the CAA is keen on competition policy. None of the independent companies could criticise the deal.
4.30 pm
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is satisfied as far as competition is concerned, which means that it is satisfied as far as consumers are concerned. We have to wait and see what BCaI and British Airways say about the deal going ahead, as there are commercial as well as competition considerations, but I have one question that I hope the Minister does not say should be directed to the Department of Transport. In the statement it was suggested that a number of slots would be given away at Gatwick. At the moment it seems that those slots could well be taken up by the airlines that take the scheduled routes that BCal or BA are to shed.
A major charter operator that operates out of Gatwick is Britannia Airways which is one of my constituency companies. Charter operators schedule regular charters and I want to ensure that that airline and others like it are also looked after. That is extremely important because the charter work within the airline business is as important as the scheduled work. It is through charters that many people fly for the first time. When people go on holiday, it is sometimes the only time they fly. With the opportunity we have with this major reorganisation at Gatwick, I want

to ensure that there is some protection for charter operators. In terms of what the statement offers for competition and opportunities for the independent airlines, it is the best possible deal that could have been worked out.

Mr. Hoyle: Unlike the Conservative Members who have spoken, I congratulate the House on getting around its procedures to have a debate on an industry in which at least 25,000 people work. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank you for the help that you have given us to secure the debate. Having said that, I wish that we were having the debate about a publicly owned British Airways instead of a privately owned one. As such, I welcome what has happened, although, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), it does leave the Government's policy in a bit of a shambles.
When the Minister replies, will he tell us the position of the routes that are to be given up within a month? There is no way within a month that operators can be allocated those routes. It will take at least six months. Domestic routes, Paris, Brussels and Nice flights are all to be given up immediately. What operator will replace them? I hope that the Minister will be able to inform us about that.
Another important consideration in the air transport industry is the order for the A320 airbus. When the Back Bench aviation committee discussed the matter agreement was more or less reached with British Airways that, provided that it did not lose all its European routes, it would go ahead with the airbus order. A lot of jobs depend on that, so I hope that the Minister will reply to that important point. Having seen so many of our manufacturing industries decimated, I am pleased that we still have a strong national carrier that will be able to meet the competition from the megacarriers over the Atlantic—I am pleased about that—who will immediately take up the routes that are to be given up within a month.

Mr. Bill Walker: The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is to be congratulated, as this was no easy problem. It was a complex problem. As it concerns international and domestic carriers and the European situation, it would have been extremely difficult for anyone to come up with a package that would satisfy all the demands and all the pressures. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has produced a package that may just be satisfactory and viable to most of the interested parties. That surely must be unique. In all the years that I have been following aviation debates, I cannot remember when an outside body such as the commission has come forward with a proposal such as that contained in its report, which it seems will be accepted by British Airways and British Caledonian. We do not know for sure, however, because there are commercial details to be resolved if the bid goes ahead. Having listened to a number of the independent operators today, and in particular to Michael Bishop, who spoke on radio earlier today, I believe that he and the other independent carriers also believe that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has produced a proposal that is viable and that will work.
I would like the Minister to comment on the situation at Gatwick to which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) referred. It is important that the airlines that were first in Gatwick will have their granny rights to slots protected in the proposed changes. Our independent airlines must not feel that they will be


squeezed out. At the same time, we must ensure that British Airways, or British Airways and British Caledonian. if they merge, are not disadvantaged because, as Labour Members said, it will become our important flag carrier.
I am pleased about that, because British Caledonian's greatest asset is its staff. It was right that Labour Members should draw attention to the concerns of its staff. All the staff I have spoken to at British Caledonian, contrary to what has been suggested, have said quite clearly that they are in favour of the merger. The trade unions have also made their position quite clear. The announced arrangement will guarantee that the bulk of British Caledonian staff will end up with British Airways if the merger goes ahead.
I fully agree with the suggestion from the Opposition Benches that something must be done in future about the tube from central London to Heathrow. There is no doubt that the air service from Scotland to Heathrow is superb. There is no other way to describe it. There may be complaints about some of the details, but one cannot complain about the frequency of services or how well it runs. Regardless of how awful the weather is at times, it is surprising how often services arrive on time. The only impediment to the service is that one is put off by having to board a tube. I heartily agree with the suggestion that something should be done about the tube at an early date.

Mr. Bruce: I am pleased with the unusual departure from the debate because we have had a statement from the Government. It is unfortunate that it could not have been coherently timetabled, but I believe we all know the reason for that. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you for allowing this important issue to be aired in the House.
I shall depart from the sentiments that have been expressed by other hon. Members because my view is that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission made the wrong decision. Notwithstanding the carefully considered caveats that the commission has proposed, I do not believe that it has come down on the right side. The first consequence is that the Government's stated airlines competition policy is in tatters.
It is right and proper for us to ask the Government to come to the House at an early opportunity and state what they believe should be the future of airline competition now that the merger is going ahead. The fact that certain routes are being removed from the new airline and offered to independent airlines does not alter the fundamental fact that we shall have one super, mega-airline dominating the scene, and a fragmented group of small fry competing for the crumbs that the mega-airline deigns to leave on or below the table. The Minister and the Government cannot sit back and allow such a situation to develop.
Do the Government have any idea about the possibility of all the routes being bid for by one United Kingdom airline? Would the Government favour that? The issue whether we have a significant second-ranking airline in the United Kingdom or one dominant airline and a few minnows is crucial. If the answer is that, in future, there will be no second-ranking airline of substance, the Government must acknowledge that that wholly contradicts their stated policy hitherto. So they must give us clear guidance about the future.
What if some of the routes are not bid for? There is some evidence that, given the imbalance of commercial competition that will exist, some of the routes will revert

to the new airline because of the commercial weakness of the competitors. If that happens, the position as outlined today by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will not resemble that in 12 months, two years or five years' time.
The new airline's role at Gatwick causes real concern. I accept that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has addressed itself to that issue, and that giving up some of the 5,000 slots will release routes. I am not satisfied, however, that the assurances that have been given mean that the competitive airlines will get the slots that they need, not only at the time of year when they need them, as the report mentions, but at the time of day. That factor makes the difference between who does and does not obtain the cream of the traffic.
Too many things are left to trust in the report — aspects that a dominant carrier cannot be trusted with. The statement in the report that facilities for maintenance and repair will continue to be offered without discrimination at Gatwick is made without qualification or explanation of how it can be guaranteed. Although the commission has considered the arguments, it has been subjected to external pressures — I do not mean improper pressures—that have made it difficult for the commission to detach itself from the emerging British Caledonian role. Of course, no one wants the demise of British Caledonian.
What has been recommended in the report should have been done three years ago. If it had been, the merger would not have been necessary and British Caledonian would have been a valid, competitive airline in the world market place. We have created the biggest single airline in the world by adding a small percentage to its size; and if we accept the argument for that—the emergence of super-carriers on the other side of the Atlantic—the logical conclusion is that in a short time British Airways will be telling us that it wants a new super-carrier consisting of British Airways, British Caledonian, Alitalia, Air France and SAS. That would be a super-European airline to compete with the mega-airlines in the United States. If that is the likely development, we in the United Kingdom and the European Community had better consider what we are doing here today.
Regrettably, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has come down on the wrong side of the argument. The Government will have to consider whether the legislation at their disposal is adequate. I should have liked the Secretary of State to overturn the MMC report, but unfortunately I am advised that the Government do not have the power to do that. In future, such power should exist.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for making it possible to have a discussion on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, which has been submitted to and accepted by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry this morning.
One must bear in mind that civil aviation is a rapidly growing industry operating in fast-changing circumstances. References to second-force airlines — the Edwards report, and CAP 500, which was the civil aviation policy that was thrown on one side—are immaterial in today's circumstances because we have moved on since then. One has only to go to the United States of America to see how that country's captive domestic market, in


which more than half of the civil airliners in the world travel, has changed dramatically since the President deregulated it there at a stroke. Today, there is a new breed of megacarriers in the United States. People are beginning — perhaps reluctantly — to accept that they exist. It is difficult for such carriers to grow within the American domestic market other than by gobbling each other up, in which case they have to face the problems of anti-trust legislation. They can only grow overseas. So that is where they will go and that is why we must be in a position—as United Kingdom Limited — to compete effectively with them.
4.45 pm
In the end, I welcomed the Secretary of State's decision to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, having initially been against it. I thought it would have been far better for my noble Friend to accept the initial bid by British Airways for British Caledonian. I knew that a great deal of flak would be flying for a fortnight and then it would stop, and the company could get on with creating the sort of main flag carrier that we wanted.
Interestingly, the recommendation made by the MMC was surely not created by it. It has come about because the initial bid by British Airways was not considered by the MMC as being in the public interest. The MMC went back to British Airways and said that it just would not do. British Airways took another look at what it could offer and came up with a different formula. The so-called conditions for the merger, which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) thinks are the creation of the MMC, are nothing of the sort. They are merely the British Airways revised bid. The genius from British Airways who thought up the formula that seems to have succeeded in being readily accepted by the MMC and hon. Members on both sides of the House—with the sole exception of the hon. Member for Gordon—deserves a medal.
I accept what hon. Members have said about the fears of the smaller operators. However, many of those fears have been dealt with in the proposals. The issue of slots at airports may still persist, however. The relinquishment of 5,000 slots at Gatwick will certainly help. If certain routes are disposed of by the merged airline, other slots will become available.
A point that I have picked up from the recommendations is the suggestion that British Airways and British Caledonian should operate as one company. What about British Air Tours and British Caledonian's tour operations? At present, those are essentially two other companies. I want them all to be embraced in one company, so that that company can be treated as one unit when it comes to allocation of slots at airports.
When we were fishing around for information about how the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry might respond to what the MMC recommended, I picked up a copy of his objectives for the Department since he took office. I noticed that he said:
Business flourishes in a competitive and open economy and we aim to secure this both at home and abroad".
But civil aviation does not operate in those sorts of conditions. Today has seen the possibility of Britain taking the first steps to creating the type of market conditions in which that operation can take place. Internationally, that does not happen. This is a vastly over-regulated business

in which national pride and prestige seek to prevail over the needs of the fare-paying passenger. That is to be deplored. Hopefully, now that Britain has taken the lead, we will see rapid change and reform in the European sphere and will be in a better state to take on and beat the Americans.
In its objectives the Department of Trade and Industry also says:
We seek to produce a more competitive market by encouraging competition and tackling restrictive practices, cartels and monopolies".
Nothing could apply more clearly than that to the civil aviation industry. Generally speaking, this is a good report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. This is one of the most complex problems that the commission has had to face for a long time. It solved the problem in three months and five days. Why on earth has it taken six months on every other matter that has been referred to it?

Mr. Douglas: I had an Adjournment debate on this matter just before the recess but I do not propose to cover that ground other than in one or two sentences. When the Minister replies to the debate on this technical motion, will he tell us what has happened to the Government's competition policy? I refer him to what a former right hon. Member, Mr. Enoch Powell, said about the control of public corporations. He said—and I paraphrase—that the House had managed to devise ways of controlling public corporations but what happened to the vast private corporations that are directly related to public utilities?
What happens to our control of British Telecom, British Gas and the newfangled body that will be created under whatever name and that will be a megacarrier? What organisations within the House will be responsible? Perhaps a Select Committee will look at it. We have no direct control, like the control held by the American Congress in relation to competition policy. To set up megacarriers here because they are suitable for operations in the United States is to fly in the face of or to ignore the huge background of legislation that the United States has devised and that goes back to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act 1890 to control such organisations within their economic framework.
It is unsatisfactory to argue that this merger gives the United Kingdom the ability to compete in international air traffic markets. We have a responsibility to consumers. However, my constituents will be much more attentively engaged in looking at the neglect of the House by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Today he issued a White Paper called, "Housing: The Government's Proposals for Scotland". This is a great illustration of a newfangled newspeak. It is noticeable that there is not a Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench, although they have been parading themselves on the media in Scotland. Not one Scottish Nationalist is presently in the House to examine this issue.
We have pressed the Secretary of State for Scotland to come to the House and make a statement on this issue. I shall not detain the House very long on it. Thousands of my constituents who are tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association have protested to me about the Government's proposals. This White Paper unites two disparate bodies, the Scottish Special Housing Association and the Housing Corporation, and is trying to create an organisation to force up rents. I know that time is short but I should like to quote this newspeak. Paragraph 1.25 says:


Policies founded on the Government's objectives will inevitably result in a more diverse pattern of rents.
What the hell does that mean in real terms? It mean that rents will go up and that our folk will be forced to buy or forced to indicate to the public that they are among the poorest sections of the population.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) made a powerful plea about how Scottish Members are treated in the House. We made a great mistake in our treatment of hon. Members on both sides from Northern Ireland. I tell the House that we will not be treated that way. If Conservative Members believe that this is a United Kingdom Parliament and if they are interested in keeping the United Kingdom united, they will need to have a care about how they treat Scottish parliamentary business and Scottish Members. [Interruption.] There is no point in Conservative Members howling at me from sedentary positions. If they want to interrupt me they should get up. We will not wear this trickery and manipulation.
We know that a Government with a majority of 100 can win the votes in the House, but if the Government want to respect the United Kingdom they will have to have a care about how they treat hon. Members in all parts of the House. If the Government are really concerned about that, they should not have a repetition of what has happened today. They should not have advised you, Mr. Speaker, in the way that they did, because we had to use flexibility to get out of the situation. I tell Conservative Members that this must be the last time that this type of procedure is used, otherwise Conservative Members will carry the responsibility for the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Despite what I said some time ago, I judge it would be helpful to the House if I allowed Back Benchers to go on until 5.15 pm, at which time I will call the Front Benches. May I make a plea for very brief contributions?

Mr. David Marshall: I shall be brief. I want to make two points. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) who welcomed this report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The MMC made the right decision and one that is in the best interests of British airlines and the jobs in the British airline industry.
Despite what some hon. Members have said, it is necessary for Britain to have a megacarrier to compete in the hard, real world of airline business. The one criticism that I have about the decision is that I regret that it was necessary to go to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the first place. On page 73 of the report, paragraph 8.70 says:
Before the reference was made, BA offered to the Office of Fair Trading conditional undertakings:

(a) to give up 5,000 slots at Gatwick ;
(b) not to oppose any application made to the CAA by any other airline seeking a licence to operate on routes already operated by BA and/or BCAL where the existing services of BA and BCAL would not be artificially constrained ; and
(c) to submit to any examination conducted by the CAA of routes currently operated by BCA for the purpose of identifying those where further British competition would be desirable."

If that is the case, was it really necessary to refer the matter to the MMC? I hope that the Minister will answer

that question. Would it not have been far more in the public interest to allow the merger to go ahead? All that has been achieved is a delay of three months and the writing-off of millions of pounds in the value of British Caledonian. There has also been a detrimental effect on shareholders, many of whom are pensioners who have no other income on which to depend. The delay caused unnecessary worry to British Caledonian employees who wondered what their future would be, and had an adverse effect on future bookings for British Caledonian flights. I would far rather that the referral had not taken place and would have preferred that the merger had gone ahead when it was first proposed. I think that that is the view of most of the employees in the industry. In an ideal world both airlines could have continued independently and would have been able to survive. However, it is not an ideal world and this is the best deal that could possibly have been made.
The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) contained an inaccuracy. British Caledonian does not lose £7 million a year on the Glasgow to Gatwick route. It loses £7 million on all its United Kingdom domestic flights and benefits to the tune of £25 million as a result of the inter-lining that these flights provide for its other services. My hon. Friend should get his facts right.

Mr. Lambie: What about the workers in Glasgow?

Mr. Marshall: I shall come to that point. It is not often that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South, but I agree with him and with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) about future services provided by British Airways, British Caledonian and British Midland on Scottish-English routes. What guarantee will the Minister give that there will be no deterioration in these services and that jobs will be secure?

5 pm

Mr. Robert McCrindle: I listened with great interest to the dissenting voice of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). His proposition is perfectly respectable, but does he agree that. in the circumstances in which British Caledonian finds itself, the only alternative policy which the hon. Gentleman could pursue would be a take-over, either by an American or a European airline? In an ideal world, presumably neither he nor I would wish to see that, but, following his logic, it may be the only alternative. It may be instructive, therefore, to know whether the Liberals would prefer to dispose of British Caledonian, not to British Airways, which is after all a British company, but to a company in the United States or Europe.
Like many other hon. Members, I am impressed by the speed with which the MMC produced this report, particularly because the report is good for many of the parties involved. It is good for British Airways because it helps it to compete with the large American international airlines. It is undoubtedly good for the independent airlines because, although there is no guarantee that they will be allowed to take over some of the services relinquished by British Airways and British Caledonian, they have been given a new opportunity. In this vale of tears, there are few guarantees. It is an expensive exercise to start up an airline service, but this is a good report because it gives independent airlines a new opportunity.
Most hon. Members know that for some years I have acted as an adviser to British Caledonian. The report is also good for British Caledonian. In the ideal world, it would have been preferable if it had not had to relinquish those routes which the joint airline will have to give up. In the circumstances, it is probably a good deal for BCal. It is a good start for an MMC report to be good for British Airways, BCal and independent airlines, but, most important of all, it is good for competition and, therefore, the consumer. That is the principal point with which we should have expected the report to deal. The hon. Member for Gordon indicates dissent, but I must remind him that, in addition to the considerable competition from many foreign airlines against British Airways—and which will continue to face the joint BA-BCal company—there is also an opportunity for new British airlines to compete over a wide area. As many hon. Members have said, this is a good report, which should be pursued at a commercial level. I hope very much that we shall be able to take the matter further.

Mr. Keith Mans: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), I wish to congratulate the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and, through him, the MMC, which rejected the original proposal made by British Airways to take over British Caledonian. Clearly, that was not in the interests of the consumer or of competition policy in this country. However, these revised proposals most certainly are in the interests of the consumer and of competition.
Effectively, most of the route structure that was British Caledonian and still is will now be the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. It will have to consider the various applications from British Airways and from the other independent airlines which over the past few weeks have expressed an interest in these routes and possibly an interest in taking over British Caledonian.
In a way, that enhances the Government's competition policy. It allows the Civil Aviation Authority to reconsider many domestic routes into Europe and come up with some proposals which will put the consumer first. I also want to mention the fact that over the next year or so there is the possibility of the deregulation of air fares in Europe. I see that, coupled with the reallocation of routes, as a very positive step.
Having said that, I believe that various Opposition Members have mistaken the very intricate way in which competition policy operates within the airline environment. On the one hand, there is international competition between one British carrier — in the main, British Airways—and various other foreign carriers, and on the other hand there is domestic and European competition essentially between a number of British airlines and continental operators.
The best aspect of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report is that it recognises the interests of the independents which operate charter services, domestic flights and flights to Europe. At the same time, the report appreciates the needs of British Airways into the 1990s to ensure that this country has a premier carrier that can compete effectively with other international carriers and most specifically with the American megacarriers. I commend the report as being a very good compromise.

Mr. Ingram: I have been following the merger issue with deep interest because I have a particular constituency interest. When the merger proposals were first mooted, the Rolls-Royce workers at the East Kilbride plant were fearful for their jobs. They were afraid for a specific reason, because the biggest civil contract on the repair and renewal side of the Rolls-Royce plant at East Kilbride relates to the British Caledonian engines. The workers were afraid that, if the merger went ahead, they would lose that contract and consequently lose jobs.
Only last week the joint trade unions were assured by the management that they had nothing to fear from the merger. They were told that British Caledonian engines would continue to be maintained at Rolls-Royce East Kilbride because British Airways could not handle the extra capacity which the merger would place upon that company in view of British Airways' current work load.
I have read a statement that has been issued about the merger. I found that the merger proposals now mean that, within one month of its acquiring a controlling interest in British Caledonian Group, British Airways will return all British Caledonian licences to operate domestic routes, including routes to the Channel Islands and routes between Gatwick and Paris, Brussels, Nice, Stockholm and Stuttgart. That can only mean one thing. There is panic among the trade unionists in East Kilbride because of today's statement. The trade unionists have interpreted the statement to mean that there will be fewer routes, fewer aircraft and fewer engines to maintain. Therefore, I want the Minister to give us a guarantee that no jobs will be lost in Rolls-Royce East Kilbride as a consequence of the merger. The Government have already caused job losses through the privatisation of Rolls-Royce. Please do not give us any more redundancies as a result of the merger.

Mr. James Cran: I must confess that when the merger arose, I would have numbered myself among those who would have been sceptical about finding any sense in today's report. For that reason, several of my hon. Friends and I tabled an early-day motion. We were convinced that the whole cornerstone which gives the customer the best service at the best price would in some way be compromised. However, against that background, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on having taken the decision to refer the issue to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Against that sceptical background, I must admit that the report makes an enormous amount of sense given that if we are sensible and fair-minded on both sides of the House—as we are occasionally—it was always going to be difficult to provide a report which made sense to all of the interests involved. It is also worth reinforcing the case that has already been made, that British Airways was extremely sensible in moving away from its original position to its final stance, which made it a great deal easier to achieve the rapprochement which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has produced at the end of the day.
British Airways may win or lose over the slots issue at Gatwick and the question of the reallocation of routes. I believe that it is up to the independent airlines to state their cases clearly and get into the ring and put their money where their mouths are. I fully expect that the independents will do that.
From being a sceptic, I now believe that the report is extremely good. It is good for competition, for the


customer and above all — and this will be recognised sooner or later by the smaller airlines—for the smaller airlines as well.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I feel slightly out of place as I am the first non-Caledonian Member on the Opposition Benches to be called in the debate. I am well aware that it is laid out in "Erskine May" that when we are discussing the takeover of British Caledonian, hon. Members must at least have some Caledonian blood.
We have heard reference to the fact that the merger has been a great success for the Government's competition policy. However, if the merger had been mentioned at the time of the privatisation of British Airways, I do not believe that it would have gone ahead. The idea was to encourage competition, not to swallow it up within less than two years of that takeover.
However, that is not the matter that I want to draw to the attention of the House in the short time remaining to me. I want to raise the matter of the unprecedented and certainly unorthodox way in which the takeover has proceeded, to the extent that Ministers have not been able to take their own decisions. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has pre-empted that decision and British Airways has pre-empted it by a process of plea bargaining.
We have heard that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was minded to reject the original takeover bid. British Airways then appeared to have sliced away elements of its takeover until it had reached the percentage of British Caledonian that it was to take over which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission regarded as acceptable. That is not the MMC's job. That is the job of Government Ministers responsible to the House. The MMC's job is to discuss takeover bids, not to discuss competition policy in the airline industry. That is the job of this House. The only increase in competition that we have seen as a result of the report and the decision announed today is the increase in competition between the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in another place as to who is really responsible for competition in the airline industry.
Paragraph 8.71 of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report states:
In response to the objections of various parties, and to anxieties which we expressed ourselves, BA also developed further its proposals for the merger.
That is plea bargaining and that is not a suitable way for us to decide what level of competition we require in the airline industry. For the airline attempting the takeover to slice away bits of the attempted takeover when it realises that things are going against it initially simply usurps the functions of Ministers and this House to discuss competition policy on the Floor of the House. It would make far more sense if the Monopolies and Mergers Commission said that it did not like a takeover bid, and Ministers could either overturn or agree with its recommendation. But if the MMC must agree the merger, that leaves Ministers with no function at all. We have had a nonsensical discussion today over a takeover bid that Ministers ultimately could not discuss, because the MMC had already agreed it on a plea bargaining basis with British Airways.

Mr. Michael Brown: I shall be very brief. I should like to say how much I agree with the

conclusions of the MMC's report. I congratulate my right hon. Friends on deciding, against a background of controversy, to refer the bid to the commission. I find it remarkable that a number of Opposition Members spoke out against the decision to refer the bid. If we bear in mind that the Opposition Front Bench called for a referral, that shows the lack of an Opposition competition policy. Nevertheless, although there were elements of controversy and doubt, it was absolutely right to refer the bid to the commission.
I welcome the report's conclusions. It strikes the right balance between ensuring that there is competition in the aviation industry and, at the same time, preserving for the country a national airline in which we can all take pride.

Mr. Blair: I should like to ask the Minister certain specific questions.
First, does the Minister agree with British Caledonian's statement that the ultimate cause of the present position is the Government's inconsistent airline policy — in particular, the failure to transfer routes as recommended by the CAA in 1984? Does he agree that the concept of a second-force airline is now effectively dead? Does he regret that and does he feel that his Department bears any responsibility?
Does the Minister agree with the view of many hon. Members on both sides of the House that the most that can be said for the report is that it makes the best of a bad job? Is he aware of the views of the MMC on the issue of market dominance? Is he aware that the MMC believes that if the merger had gone through without conditions, it would have severely restricted competition, that the conditions will reduce the dangers of a restriction in competition, but that those dangers still remain? Could he quantify those dangers?
How likely is it that the availability of competition will be taken up by other airlines? Is it not the case that British Caledonian domestic licences are to be returned? There are 10 European licences to be returned. The merged airline has said that it will not oppose applications on the transnational routes. That is the theoretical framework, but can the Minister tell us what practical assumptions we can make that competition will occur as a result of the availability of licences to other airlines? Has the Department a view on that; and, if so, what is it?
Let me take up a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I understand that British Airways has put certain proposals to the commission, and there has been negotiation about those proposals. Effectively, the report accepts them. I would turn the point round from the way in which it was put by Conservative Members. If the commission report states what British Airways wanted as its negotiating position, should that not give us even greater concern about competition, as British Airways has, in effect, determined the terms of the commission's report?
Will the Minister also deal with the number of slots at Gatwick airport? I understand that 5,000 slots must be returned and 20,000 may be returned. Am I right in believing that over 13,000 slots, now held by British Caledonian, will be held by the merged airline?

Dr. Reid: During his comments to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, will my hon. Friend make references not only to the substance of his remarks this afternoon, but to their form? I am not sure whether it was a statement,


a semi-statement or a thought for the day. I raise the matter because the form of the statement, or lack of statement, is a cover under which later today the Secretary of State for Scotland will deny the House a statement on the Government's proposals on Scottish housing. Through my hon. Friend, can I put the position to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? The argument seems to be that he cannot make an official statement to the House today. No doubt the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot either, because today is Tuesday here. Such a statement is appropriate in the other place, because it is Wednesday there. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and I——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is intervening in his hon. Friend's speech.

Dr. Reid: I will be very brief.

Mr. Speaker: That is not fair. The hon. Member must put a question to his hon. Friend.

Dr. Reid: In that case, Mr. Speaker, will my hon. Friend ask the Minister whether there is not a contradiction? Today, the three people whom I have mentioned have been sitting in a Select Committee on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill. As it is a hybrid Bill Committee, it is Wednesday for them. The Secretary of State for Scotland cannot make a statement to the House because he is in a different time zone—namely, Tuesday. Will he make the statement to me? I am here on Wednesday, and I promise not to tell my friends.

Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend has made his point very well. If he is confused by Government statements, he has that in common with the rest of us.
Does the Minister agree that what will concern people most following the publication of the report is the position of consumers? What guarantees can he give on prices and fares after the merger, and what will be the effect on jobs?
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) said that the Government's competition policy was intricate. Those of us who remember their refusal to send the purchase of the Today newspaper by Mr. Rupert Murdoch to the MMC find it anything but intricate or subtle. We were told at the time when British Airways was privatised that privatisation would result in greater competition for the consumer. Where does that leave not only the Government's competition policy, but their privatisation policy?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): Perhaps I can initially help the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who raised a complex issue to do with time warps. He was not certain of the nature of the event in which we are participating. Perhaps I can make that clear to him : this is what we call a debate.
It has been a useful debate, and a number of hon. Members have raised interesting points on the report of the MMC, which was produced, I believe, in record time. I should also like to join others who have congratulated the chairman and members of the commission on their achievement.

Dr. Reid: As this is a debate, perhaps you could answer a question. If you cannot make a statement here today——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not refer to me.

Dr. Reid: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister cannot make a statement to the rest of the House because it is Tuesday, can he make a statement to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and myself? All day we have been working on Wednesday's business. Can the Minister give me an answer during the debate?

Mr. Maude: I had better steer clear of the metaphysics and get on with answering some of the points in the debate.
I must congratulate the MMC. Its achievement in completing the inquiry within three months is very remarkable, and I hope that it sets a precedent. It will enable more matters to be referred to the commission where appropriate, because it will not be possible for target companies to argue that the urgency of the financial position prevents a referral.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) raised a few points. I apologise if I cannot deal with all the detailed points that were raised because many of them were about aviation. I slightly regret that at this time of day we cannot participate in an aviation debate because, as I understand it, the business for the day was supposed to be a debate on transport, in which all those matters could have been raised in greater detail and at great length, and dealt with by a Transport Minister. If the Opposition had not suddenly started to take an interest in the wildlife of Felixstowe, we could have had that debate. It is entirely their fault.
With that caveat, I shall do my best to answer some of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Dagenham seemed to be in favour of the outcome of the inquiry. He accepted that there is an irresistible logic in the conclusion reached by the MMC. If I can summarise the feelings of most of those who have spoken in the debate, it seems to be the view that, given a difficult competition problem, broadly, the MMC has reached a sensible, practical conclusion, which enables competition to be retained, but also enables the undoubted benefits of the merger to be achieved.

Mr. Gould: Let me ask the Minister a question that falls squarely within the responsibilities of his Department and has little to do with the Department of Transport. As it is a matter of competition policy, can the Minister now restate the oft-repeated statement by his senior colleagues, including the current Secretary of State, that the essence, indeed the only criterion, of the Government's policy is competition?

Mr. Maude: I can do no more than refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement that has been made and repeated by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State, that when a merger or a bid is referred to the MMC, the principal criterion will be competition, but not solely competition. In some cases, there may be a wider public interest, but I am not revealing anything that the hon. Gentleman does not know full well. There is still a wider public interest in some cases, but competition is the principal consideration that will be met.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) was concerned about employment. Of course, the MMC would have taken evidence and made a judgment on the overall public interest involved, taking into account not just competition but employment and other issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) raised two principal points, the first of which is important. It concerns routes where two airlines are designated and whether the new merged airline will occupy both those routes. The answer is that BA proposes that the merged airline will operate as a single airline for designation purposes. Any airline wishing to take advantage of the bilateral opportunities must first have a licence from the CAA. I cannot speculate on who may apply for licences surrendered by BA or on who should get them. That is for the CAA and, on appeal, for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Some hon. Members were concerned about whether there is likely to be competition to take the licences that are returned. All that I can say is that the independent airlines have said repeatedly that they believe that they can run those services more cheaply than at present. I should be astonished if they did not come forward to take those licences, but I cannot make them apply. All that can be done — as will be done — is that the licences will be surrendered and it will be open for others to apply for them. It opens up an area of competition to the independent airlines which, at present, is not open to them. That must be a benefit for competition and the consumers. I am sure that the opportunity will be taken.

Mr. Blair: Does the Minister agree that the concept of a second force airline is now dead?

Mr. Maude: We shall have to see what emerges when the other airlines apply for the slots and the licences that will be available. I cannot speculate on who will apply, and it would not he proper for me to do so. But I have no doubt that successful independent airlines will take advantage of the competitive opportunities and make full use of them.

Mr. Blair: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maude: I am sorry, but I shall not give way any more as it has been a short debate and Mr. Speaker properly said that we want to get back to the other business. I must press on.
The second point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton was about the transfer by BA of scheduled services to Gatwick or vice versa. The MMC considered the point that a merged BA and BCal might transfer its scheduled services to Gatwick, making it more difficult for its competitors to establish effective and profitable services at the airport. However, the MMC considered that it would not necessarily be more difficult for airlines operating from Gatwick to compete with BA operating from both airports than with BA operating from Heathrow and BCal from Gatwick. The commission also considered that the BA proposals to surrender slots will modify considerably the position of the merged airline at Gatwick and the possibility of it taking unfair advantage of its strength, to the detriment of other operators.
I understand that slots surrendered by BA will be reallocated by the Gatwick scheduling committee, in accordance with its usual procedures. I share the opinion expressed of the charter airlines by some of my hon. Friends. Those airlines have fully supported that system. My hon. Friend's point is met and will be safeguarded. Because the MMC made no adverse public interest finding, my right hon. Friend——

Mr. Ingram: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maude: I shall not give way any more.

Mr. Lambie: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maude: I shall not give way any more, I am afraid.

Mr. Lambie: There are points to be made about Glasgow.

Mr. Maude: Any detailed points on aviation matters that have been raised——

Mr. Lambie: rose——

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if his hon. Friends had enabled the business to proceed as scheduled, all those matters could have been dealt with——

Mr. Ingram: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order.

Mr. Ingram: I understood that the Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) that this was a debate. If it is a debate, let him debate with us.

Mr. Maude: It is a short debate, principally on the MMC, not on aviation in general. I am here to reply on the competition aspects of the commission's report for which my Department is responsible.

Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt the Minister, but he keeps repeating that he is dealing with competition. The repository of competition in relation to aviation is the CAA. If the Minister cannot answer for the CAA, can a Minister responsible for transport come here to do that?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what the Minister has in mind, but the truth is that the debate is on the motion that the debate be now adjourned.

Mr. Maude: You rightly correct me, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to deal with the broad competition aspects that were raised. Because of the public interest finding by the commission, my right hon. and noble Friend had no power to do anything other than publish the report. That was done at 9 o'clock this morning.

Mr. Lambie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct that the Minister should not answer the specific points made by Scottish Members about the airlines flying from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London, and back? Surely the Minister can deal with that. You always remind me, Mr. Speaker, that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. If it is, surely Scottish Members are entitled to an answer. We do not accept an English Minister dealing with the report solely as English business. I am interested in jobs in Glasgow and Edinburgh. I am not too worried about jobs in Gatwick.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister must have an opportunity to reply in his own way. It is not for me to dictate to him.

Mr. Maude: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to reply to his specific point, I shall try to do so. He was concerned that competition on the Glasgow routes had resulted only in airlines offering breakfast where they had not done so before, and that it had had no significant effect on fares. He is wrong—it has had a significant effect on fares and the fares structure. There have been several other benefits in an improvement in the quality of service. If he does not want breakfast on the aeroplane, no one shall make him have it.
Some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues made the reverse point. I was asked to give a binding guarantee that the service on that route would not be impaired in any way. I shall have to sort it out. I have no doubt that competition will continue to operate for the benefit of the consumer as it has — spectacularly — on that route. If anyone has any doubt about the beneficial effect of competition on airline routes, they need only consider the route across the Atlantic, for which fares have been dramatically reduced. I have no doubt that increased competition on domestic and European routes resulting from the proposals which the MMC has found not to be against the public interest will continue to be beneficial to the consumers.

Mr. Bruce: I pressed for an answer and would be interested to know who would take the decision if one airline applied for all the routes that are being shed. What would the Government's reaction be, and who would decide if such a bid were acceptable?

Mr. Maude: It has been made clear on many occasions that it is the CAA which decides who gets licences on any routes, whether they are returned by British Airways as in this case, or arise for the first time. The CAA makes the allocations. There is a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but the CAA makes allocations on the basis it thinks proper. The CAA regards the merits of competition very highly and will have that very much in mind. My right hon. and noble Friend had no power to do other than publish the report. We have done that, and the report has broadly been welcomed.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) mentioned the form in which the proposals were made. We have made it absolutely clear to British Airways that we expect the proposals to be implemented within the time scale which has been set out. We have the power to make a full monopoly reference in future. Nothing I say can bind the Secretary of State's discretion in future, but we regard competition as crucial. My right hon. and noble Friend would not hesitate to use those powers in an appropriate case.
This has been a helpful debate. I am sorry that we could not have a full debate on the aviation aspect, but we have aired the issues. If there are any detailed points that I have not been able to deal with, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for aviation and shipping will write to hon. Members. I advise my hon. Friends to join me in voting against the motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 266.

Division No. 65]
[5.40 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Buckley, George


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Jim


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Beckett, Margaret
Clay, Bob


Bell, Stuart
Clelland, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbett, Robin


Blair, Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Cousins, Jim


Buchan, Norman
Cox, Tom





Cryer, Bob
McKelvey, William


Cummings, J.
McLeish, Henry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McTaggart, Bob


Cunningham, Dr John
Madden, Max


Darling, Alastair
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall. David (Shettleston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dewar, Donald
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Dixon, Don
Maxton, John


Dobson, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Doran, Frank
Meale, Alan


Douglas, Dick
Michael, Alun


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunnachie, James
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Eastham, Ken
Morgan, Rhodri


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morley, Elliott


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Nellist, Dave


Fatchett, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
O'Brien, William


Fisher, Mark
O'Neill, Martin


Flannery, Martin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Flynn, Paul
Patchett, Terry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pike, Peter


Foster, Derek
Prescott, John


Foulkes, George
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Fraser, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Reid, John


Galbraith, Samuel
Richardson, Ms Jo


Galloway, George
Robertson, George


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Robinson, Geoffrey


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Rogers, Allan


Gould, Bryan
Rooker, Jeff


Graham, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Rowlands, Ted


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Grocott, Bruce
Salmond, Alex


Hardy, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Skinner, Dennis


Heffer, Eric S.
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Henderson, Douglas
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Snape, Peter


Home Robertson, John
Stott, Roger


Hood, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Hoyle, Doug
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Turner, Dennis


Illsley, Eric
Vaz, Keith


Ingram, Adam
Wall, Pat


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Walley, Ms Joan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wareing, Robert N.


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Lambie, David
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Lamond, James
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Leighton, Ron
Wilson, Brian


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Winnick, David


Lewis, Terry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Livingstone, Ken
Worthington, Anthony


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wray, James


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McAllion, John



McCartney, Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Macdonald, Calum
Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Ray Powell.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Ashby, David


Alexander, Richard
Ashdown, Paddy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Aspinwall, Jack


Allason, Rupert
Atkins, Robert


Alton, David
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Amos, Alan
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Arbuthnot, James
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony






Beith, A. J.
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bellingham, Henry
Gorst, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Benyon, W.
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Boswell, Tim
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bright, Graham
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hannam, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Harris, David


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hawkins, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayes, Jerry


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hayward, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Heddle, John


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butcher, John
Holt, Richard


Butler, Chris
Howard, Michael


Butterfill, John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cartwright, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Irvine, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Janman, Timothy


Chapman, Sydney
Jessel, Toby


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Churchill, Mr
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Key, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Colvin, Michael
Kirkwood, Archy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knapman, Roger


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cope, John
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Couchman, James
Knowles, Michael


Cran, James
Knox, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Curry, David
Lang, Ian


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Latham, Michael


Davis, David (Boothlerry)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Day, Stephen
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Devlin, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dicks, Terry
Lightbown, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Lilley, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Livsey, Richard


Dunn, Bob
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Durant, Tony
Lord, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Emery, Sir Peter
McCrindle, Robert


Fallon, Michael
Macfarlane, Neil


Farr, Sir John
MacGregor, John


Favell, Tony
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fearn, Ronald
Maclean, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Malins, Humfrey


Forman, Nigel
Mans, Keith


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marland, Paul


Forth, Eric
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Franks, Cecil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Freeman, Roger
Maude, Hon Francis


French, Douglas
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Mellor, David


Gardiner, George
Mills, lain


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miscampbell, Norman


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Moate, Roger


Glyn, Dr Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Goodlad, Alastair
Moore, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)





Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Moss, Malcolm
Stern, Michael


Mudd, David
Stevens, Lewis


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Needham, Richard
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Newton, Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Page, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Paice, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thorne, Neil


Portillo, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Price, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rhodes James, Robert
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Riddick, Graham
Tracey, Richard


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Viggers, Peter


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rost, Peter
Wallace, James


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Ward, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Watts, John


Scott, Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wheeler, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Sims, Roger
Wood, Timothy


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Woodcock, Mike


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Speed, Keith



Speller, Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Richard Ryder and Mr. Alan Howarth.


Stanbrook, Ivor



Stanley, Rt Hon John

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): We now resume the debate on amendment No. 33.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that during the small hours several of us had to draw your attention to the fact that several Conservative Members were in what appeared to be a comatose state. Some of my hon. Friends were so unkind as to suggest that perhaps they had been drinking. I rapidly disabused them of that idea because it would be improper for anyone to suggest that hon. Members came into the Chamber under the influence of alcohol.
That particular point has some substance on this occasion because, as you will recall, the issue of the champagne party that never was has run throughout the debate. During a Division when I was walking into the Aye Lobby I had to walk through the Conservative Benches. At the back I found a paper cup. Not only was there one paper cup, but there was a pile of them. I have a fairly acute nose and, while I do not have the ability to differentiate one wine from another, I certainly can smell and recognise alcohol. I can assure you that in the very spot where last night there were several comatose Conservative Members there is a pile of paper cups which smell of alcohol.
I am not by nature a suspicious man, but I am inclined to put two and two together in this case. It dawns slowly on me that some Conservative Members who last night were obviously in a comatose state had been drinking. Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, give some guidance to the House, first, whether it is in order for hon. Members to bring in paper cups and, secondly, if it is in order, whether you can suggest that they restrict their bedtime drinks to cocoa rather than alcohol?

Mr. Harry Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a related matter and perhaps you can deal with both points at the same time. I heard some complaints from Conservative Members that last night when the party was going on Tory Members who went to the beanfeast first got more than their fair whack of drink and food at the expense of P and O and that those who went last had to satisfy themselves with the leftovers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can deal with these points. We have been round this course many times before. These are not matters for me. I am sure that the whole House will agree that if we continue having points of order like this, we shall all be comatose. I call Sir Eldon Griffiths.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Before the events of the past two hours——

Mr. Allen McKay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall speak to amendments Nos. 34 and 35 which are linked with amendment No. 33. Would it be better for the hon. Gentleman to answer questions on all three amendments together or would he prefer to deal with amendment No. 33 and then the others?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As we have had an intervening debate, perhaps I should have made it clear to the House that we are discussing amendment No. 33, which is being discussed together with amendments Nos. 34 and 35.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am sure that it is right that I should speak briefly to these amendments because they are all related to each other. The first would reduce the length of time during which the port authority would be required to complete all the works that are authorised by the Bill from 10 years to five years.
I have discussed the matter in some detail with the promoters of the Bill, contractors, and those who are skilled in the construction of large-scale works of this type. Their unanimous view is that a lead time of only five years is insufficient to enable the totality of the job to be done right. Of course, as the House would expect, there has been a good deal of pre-planning and preparation. But when one considers the long lead times that are involved in projects of such a large scale and the requirements that the House has rightly placed upon the promoters to have regard to environmental matters—that is, to wildlife and so on — the proposition that the matter could be planned, constructed and opened to meet all the requirements of the port and the legislation within a five-year period, with respect to the movers, is unreasonable. Therefore, the 10-year period should remain in the Bill.
Amendment No. 34 would delete the words that enable the Secretary of State, in his judgment, to extend that period of time. That is a fairly normal provision in such legislation. Of course, there can be many changes in the total economic and financial circumstances of the

company and the country. Only recently, we saw some of the vagaries of the financial system. We have all gone through periods when, for one reason or another, there have been balance of payments crises when the country has been more prosperous or less prosperous. In such circumstances, it is right that the Secretary of State, having regard to the totality of ports policy and the country's general economic situation, should not be denied the option, if he judged it right — of course, being accountable to the House — to give some extension beyond that time if it seems appropriate.
Amendment No. 35 deals with what I call planning arrangements. It has properly been said that the Bill provides the authority with some planning powers that arise from the legislation. Clause 14(b), which amendment No. 35 would affect, was the result of an agreement reached between the dock company and the Suffolk county council when our colleagues were examining the Bill in great detail. Of course, the Suffolk county council is the planning authority. It originally objected to the scheme and was not prepared to withdraw its objections, and, indeed, its potential petition against the Bill, unless it was satisfied, across a whole range of planning matters, that the county planning committee and the county planners quite properly wanted to have settled. Therefore, the arrangement is that the clause as it stands will prevent the dock company from erecting any sort of structure, including stacks of cargo, above a height of 17 m, which I assume to be a good deal short of the height of the Chamber. The company is not permitted to-erect such a structure without going through the normal planning procedures with the local authority.
However, for what the House will recognise to be quite obvious reasons, there are some items that any port must have, such as gantries, cranes, jibs, lighting towers and booms, which, by definition, cannot fall within such limits. The Bill provides that those items would be installed by the port without the specific planning consent that is required for other items.
6 pm
As I was aware of the concern of many right hon. and hon. Members about the impact of bright lights shining from some height in a rural area, I discussed with the promoters the possibilities of ensuring that any lights that are positioned at a considerable height above the ground are shaded and pointed downwards to help dockers in the course of loading and unloading cargo. I was aware of the concern that such lights should not shine outwards across the estuary or the countryside. I am advised that it is possible to provide shading of a sort that will reduce the environmental impact. It is not possible, of course, to eliminate that impact.
If we are trying to build a modern port that is able to compete with ports in the rest of the world, it is necessary that the port authority should be able to use the implements of its business. The full planning requirements apply to any structure over 40ft above the ground save for specific items that cannot, in modern times, be kept below that height. I hope that the House will not press the amendments to a Division. If they were accepted, they would abort the ability of the company to create a modern port to compete with the entire world.

Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has put his finger on the issues that are causing us concern. First, I accept what he has said


about 10 years and five years. It would be a massive construction to complete within five years. Discussion on amendment No. 33 has made it clear that the port authority decided to bypass the local authority because it knew that the local authority would not grant it planning permission. Instead, it decided to use the parliamentary system, which means that a local, democratically elected authority need not be involved in the granting of planning permission. I hope that the House will address itself to the implications of the parliamentary system in due course. A local authority that is elected through the ballot box by the public can be placed in a position in which it is unable to express the public's opinion. That is why amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35 should be accepted by the House.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend has expressed the dissatisfaction that is felt by many with the parliamentary system, as he has described it. He knows as a former member of a local authority that an application that is refused by a local planning authority can be sent ultimately to the Secretary of State for determination. Does he accept that the parliamentary system has no realistic role if it enables local authorities to be bypassed?

Mr. McKay: My hon. Friend is right. Bills of the sort that we are discussing make Parliament the planning authority. In this instance the issue has come directly to the Secretary of State, and he will make a decision. This means that the Secretary of State is involved politically from the beginning in a planning application. Surely that is not right.
Part of clause 14(1)(a) reads:
or at the end of such extended period as the Secretary of State may, on the application of the Company, allow".
Again, the Secretary of State is involved politically. If money is available to use the parliamentary system it will be used, but that does not make the system right. Indeed, it makes it wrong. It will be possible for the Secretary of State to be approached and for an application to be made to extend the 10-year provision. There will be no need to make submissions to the local authority. There is not even provision for consultation. It is not necessary to obtain the local authority's views, which are the people's views. The matter can be determined between the Secretary of State and the board.
History is littered with those who have determined planning applications and run foul of the law. I am not saying that that will happen in this instance, but it is clear that it could when we have regard to what has happened in the past. That should be noted carefully at a time when we are involving the House as a planning authority and the Secretary of State is using his political powers, the local authority being unable to use the powers that rightly belong to it.
In speaking to amendment No. 35, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said that the overhead lights could be pointed downwards, which I accept. However, if lights are positioned 60, 70 or 80 ft above the ground, the surrounding area will be illuminated to some extent irrespective of any shading that is provided. The amendment would remove the following words:
other than lights and lighting towers, cranes, trolleys, gantries, jibs or booms".
In other words, it would bear on everything in the docks. The worrying feature is that these items can be built without having to engage in consultation or make planning applications. The powers that the Secretary of

State will give the board will make it a free entity and it will be able to do virtually what it wants. These are matters that should concern the whole House. There is every danger that the visual amenities of an area will be destroyed without recourse to the local authority, which represents the people. It is clear that there need be no consultation. Too much power will be in the board's hands.

Mr. McCartney: I listened intently to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), as I have done for the past 22 hours. I am more than worried by the concept he is promoting within the Bill and the use of the private Member's Bill procedure to circumvent planning regulations.
An attempt is being made to bypass planning regulations by using the general development order provisions of 1977, whereby a development that is authorised by a private Act of Parliament is deemed to have planning consent. Therefore, this House is being used as a planning authority, and the democratic controls that apply in local authority planning are absent from the parliamentary system.
The Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Energy take a rather dim view of deemed consent when it comes to negotiating with local authorities about the way in which they proceed with issues such as opencast developments. It is less than three years ago when the deemed consent regulations were scrapped and the opencast authority was made, by changes in regulations, to go through appropriate planning procedures and come under the control of local planning authorities, with the safeguard of a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if a planning application was not determined or was determined against the applicant. In part, the Bill is an attempt to reimpose the deemed consent procedure at a time when the Government are beginning in many ways to get rid of it. They regard it as undemocratic. It works against local planning regulations and the county structure plans that the Department of the Environment implemented under the Local Government Act 1972. On two occasions since then the county councils have renewed the plans. In the end the Secretary of State has to approve them as the general plans for the whole county.
The Secretary of State also has control over local district council plans. It is nonsense to suggest that the amendments would reduce the power of the Secretary of State. They would enable the Secretary of State to be involved in every part of the planning process; more important, they would give local authorities, local organisations and ratepayers an opportunity to be involved in the planning process. In regard to this port development the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants the port authority to be able to develop the land over the next 10 years, with only certain restrictions. At the end of that time the port authority could go back to the Secretary of State to ask for an extension of the arrangement. That is unacceptable and undemocratic.
Under present planning regulations if, at the end of the five years, the harbour board has not completed its redevelopment proposals it should have to submit further proposals under the proper planning procedures. The local authority could consider those proposals in conjunction with the local and county structure plans already approved by the Secretary of State.
The promoters are attempting to get 10 years of unfettered development. After that they want a further period of unfettered development, cutting out the role of the local authority. If the Secretary of State for the Environment allowed an engineering company or any other company in the private sector to take advantage of the same arrangements for major development instead of going through the normal planning procedures, the House would have to deal with so many private Bills that there would be no room for any other business.
The Bill is an expensive and wasteful way of dealing with planning. It is expensive not only in its use of the time of the House but of the time of councillors who want to oppose the procedures. Such a procedure usually ends with a compromise whereby local authorities are beaten down to the lowest common denominator and whereby the promoters of the Bill are left virtually unscathed. That cannot be acceptable to the House or to the Department of the Environment which wants good planning concepts.
6.15 pm
Specific items in the Bill have not been considered in conjunction with the county structure plan already approved by the Secretary of State. The dock extension has not been properly considered locally. The land reclamation resources of the scheme have not been tested against the local plan or the county structure plan. The county council authority responsible for land reclamation resources and the distribution of development land has had no say on how this prime piece of land should be utilised over the next 10–15 years or on the effect that that will have on the economy of the locality either because of the immediate dock proposals or the industries that may be attracted to the hinterland.
The Bill does not deal with the effect of land use on the county plan or the local plan. The local authorities and communities may feel that the land use proposed in the Bill is irrelevant and may not fit in with plans already approved. That is evident from the contributions of hon. Members over the last 22 hours.
Nor does the Bill address the problems of areas of outstanding beauty. It is here that the most glaring omissions appear. Given that the Secretary of State for the Environment has already approved the county structure plan, which includes areas of special scientific interest and protected wetlands, the proposals in the Bill will not be acceptable to the local authorities, to any subsequent inquiry or to the Secretary of State.
The Government have been in collusion with the promoters of the Bill on avoiding the planning procedures. They have actually side-stepped their own Department of the Environment which rightly has the responsibility of ensuring that county structure plans are not fundamentally undermined. The Government believe in central Government control of planning procedures, but when it comes to the private interests of friends in the City, such as P and O, they are prepared to waste the time of the House, to undermine the rights of the House and to undermine their own planning procedures and the role of the Secretary of State for the Environment. That is astonishing. During the last 22 hours not one Minister has come to the Dispatch Box to protect the policies of his or her Department.
Further, the Bill does not deal with the effects of tidal movements. Within the county structure plan there has been agreement about the effect of tidal movements on the shore and on wildlife habitats. The county council will have a wildlife strategy. Because of the private Bill procedure there has been no consideration whether the development will be detrimental to the environment. In the debate hon. Member after hon. Member has quoted report after report, indicating the terrible effects that the Bill will have not just in the short term but in the long term on the ecology of the area.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has been driven to accept amendments. But the acceptance of amendments at this late hour will not prevent the damage that the Bill will do to the local and county structure plans. Through those plans the community is attempting to protect the social environment and the development of the economic base for the benefit of other ports in the vicinity. That is another reason why the Bill is a had piece of legislation. The county structure plan covers the integral development of industry for the county as a whole. Yet only a few miles down the road and across the river other ports will be affected dramatically by the Bill. The Bill ignores completely how the economy will be affected, because it is a short-term measure for short-term capital gains by the company.
The role of the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Trade and Industry has been undermined. If we are to believe the Government's policy of promoting industry in the regions and developing a co-ordinated approach to industry, its infrastructure and transport, Ministers should not have voted as they did tonight in support of a Bill which undermines the concept of industrial strategy and the planning of industrial resources.
We have not given enough consideration to environmental pollution during our debates; I am as much to blame for that as anyone. This estuary lies within the area of two other ports, at one of which — Harwich — major developments will take place. There will be increasing traffic, and ships will have to turn round in the estuary. Yet the Bill does not mention environmental pollution, especially accidents resulting from oil spillage. But had we gone through the proper planning procedures in the county structure, we could have developed an environmental pollution policy and related it to major industrial development such as the dock proposal. But not one Minister from the Department of Energy or the Department of the Environment has come to the Dispatch Box and given adequate answers about our protection in cases of environmental pollution if something went wrong because of the extension of the ports in the vicinity.
Agreed democratic local and county structure plans will be totally ignored because of the short-term gains of the Bill. But if we have learnt anything from the past 22 hours, it is this that private Bill procedures are a gross intrusion into the House and give people the ability to find their way through the planning procedure and to brush aside, because of their ability to purchase in the market place, the concept of community involvement in the environment.
That is the most worrying aspect, not the fact that the Bill might become law. In becoming law, it will set a precedent. Departments involved in the planning process, in the process of protecting the environment and in protecting us from environmental pollution, have not only


sat on their hands and said nothing, but when it has come to the vote Ministers have trooped through the Lobby to promote the interests of a company that has paid £30,000 to Tory party funds. If that is not abuse of the House, I do not know what is.
I commend the amendments to the House in general, and, even at this late stage, to Conservative Members. I give them an opportunity to regain their credibility so that the public can see that they are not interested only in the private greed of individuals.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 245.

Division No. 66]
[6.25 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Lambie, David


Allen, Graham
Leighton, Ron


Anderson, Donald
Lewis, Terry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Litherland, Robert


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Livingstone, Ken


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Beckett, Margaret
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bell, Stuart
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Marion, Mrs Alice


Boateng, Paul
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Buckley, George
Meale, Alan


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Clay, Bob
Morgan, Rhodri


Clelland, David
Morley, Elliott


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Corbett, Robin
Mullin, Chris


Corbyn, Jeremy
Murphy, Paul


Cousins, Jim
Nellist, Dave


Cryer, Bob
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cummings, J.
O'Brien, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
O'Neill, Martin


Cunningham, Dr John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Patchett, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Pendry, Tom


Dixon, Don
Pike, Peter


Dobson, Frank
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Doran, Frank
Prescott, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Dunnachie, James
Quin, Ms Joyce


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Reid, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fatchett, Derek
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Rogers, Allan


Fisher, Mark
Rowlands, Ted


Flannery, Martin
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Flynn, Paul
Sheerman, Barry


Foster, Derek
Short, Clare


Fraser, John
Skinner, Dennis


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Galloway, George
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Snape, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Turner, Dennis


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Vaz, Keith


Gould, Bryan
Wall, Pat


Graham, Thomas
Walley, Ms Joan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Grocott, Bruce
Wareing, Robert N.


Hardy, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Heffer, Eric S.
Winnick, David


Hinchliffe, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Worthington, Anthony


Hoyle, Doug
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)



Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ingram, Adam
Mr. Ron Davies and Mr. Ian McCartney.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald



Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil






NOES


Adley, Robert
Freeman, Roger


Aitken, Jonathan
Gale, Roger


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Allason, Rupert
Gill, Christopher


Alton, David
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Amos, Alan
Glyn, Dr Alan


Arbuthnot, James
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Gorst, John


Ashby, David
Gower, Sir Raymond


Ashdown, Paddy
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Atkins, Robert
Gregory, Conal


Baldry, Tony
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Grist, Ian


Beggs, Roy
Ground, Patrick


Beith, A. J.
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bellingham, Henry
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Benyon, W.
Hanley, Jeremy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Harris, David


Bottomley, Peter
Hayes, Jerry


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hayward, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brazier, Julian
Heddle, John


Bright, Graham
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hind, Kenneth


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Holt, Richard


Buck, Sir Antony
Howard, Michael


Butcher, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Butler, Chris
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Butterfill, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Carrington, Matthew
Irvine, Michael


Cartwright, John
Janman, Timothy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jessel, Toby


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Churchill, Mr
Key, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Colvin, Michael
Kirkwood, Archy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knapman, Roger


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cope, John
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David


Couchman, James
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Cran, James
Lang, Ian


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Latham, Michael


Curry, David
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Day, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Devlin, Tim
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dicks, Terry
Lightbown, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Lilley, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Livsey, Richard


Dunn, Bob
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Durant, Tony
Lord, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Emery, Sir Peter
McCrindle, Robert


Fallon, Michael
MacGregor, John


Farr, Sir John
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fearn, Ronald
Maclean, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maclennan, Robert


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Major, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Forth, Eric
Marland, Paul


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Franks, Cecil
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick






Mills, Iain
Stern, Michael


Miscampbell, Norman
Stevens, Lewis


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Summerson, Hugo


Mudd, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Newton, Tony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Page, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Paice, James
Thorne, Neil


Patnick, Irvine
Thornton, Malcolm


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Portillo, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Tracey, Richard


Rhodes James, Robert
Tredinnick, David


Riddick, Graham
Viggers, Peter


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Ryder, Richard
Wallace, James


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waller, Gary


Scott, Nicholas
Ward, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarf)
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Ray


Sims, Roger
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wiggin, Jerry


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Speed, Keith
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Timothy


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Woodcock, Mike


Steel, Rt Hon David
Yeo, Tim





Young, Sir George (Acton)
Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Michael Brown.


Tellers for the Noes:

Question accordingly negatived.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I call amendment No. 36.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Could the House settle down please? The hon. Gentleman is attempting to move his amendment.

Mr. Lloyd: Once again, Conservative Members are in a lively mood. It must be the after effects of last night.
In moving the amendment, may I make the point that it is technically deficient? For that reason we have no desire to push the matter to a vote. I am sure that that will relieve the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) who need not make any comments unless he so wishes.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to withdraw the amendment?

Mr. Lloyd: I have not moved it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: If it has not been moved, we move on——

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): May I just say that the amendment, which has been moved——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment has not been moved—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said that he was not moving the amendment, it cannot be debated.

Clause 16

RESTRICTION ON DEVELOPMENT OF TRIMLEY MARSHES

Mr. Morley: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 14, line 44, at end insert 'and'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we will discuss the following amendments: No. 38, in page 14, line 45, leave out from 'work' to end of line 3 on page 15.
No. 39, in page 15, line 3, at end insert—
'(1A) Neither the Company nor the owner of Trimley Marshes or any part thereof for the time being shall have power to promote a Bill in Parliament for amending or repealing this section.'.
No. 40, in page 15, line 20, at end insert—
' "The Company" means the Company or any subsidiary of the Company, any company of which the Company is a subsidiary, and any successor in title to the undertaking;
owner" means any owner or occupier;
subsidiary" has the meaning given to it by section 736 of the Companies Act 1985.'.

Mr. Morley: This is the final batch of amendments in a debate that, by my reckoning, has lasted 23 hours and 35 minutes. I wish briefly to pay tribute to all those who have taken part in the debate, which has in no way been frivolous or trivial. I intend to explain why we want the amendments incorporated in the Bill, but before doing so I want to thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate over such a long time. It is obviously because they care so passionately about the environmental, commercial and long-term consequences of the development.
Amendment No. 37 states, "at end insert `and'." It is simply a drafting amendment that would make the clause read better——

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will appreciate the considerable concern among Opposition Members who wish to expedite the proceedings without undue delay. It is obvious that the Government Whips have taken it upon themselves to bring in Government supporters, who are sitting idly chattering. It is of no concern to me whether they enter the Chamber, but is there not a responsibility on them to conduct themselves in a way that allows my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) to make his speech and permits all those interested to hear what he has to say?

Mr. Morley: I thank my hon. Friend. I have not been a Member of the House very long, but, coming from local government, I have been surprised by the ignorance and rudeness of some Conservative Members. Those who have been here longer than I should try to set an example by their manners and standards.
Amendment No. 38 seeks to deal with the fact that at the moment the construction of agricultural buildings is allowed on the marshes to the north of the docks that are being offered in compensation as a nature reserve. Many environmental groups, rambler groups and local people do not wish to see a site that is being offered as a compensatory nature reserve spoilt by any kind of agricultural buildings.
Amendment No. 39 tests the good faith of the Bill's promoters in their commitment to the environment. It seeks a guarantee that the company, although offering Trimley marshes by way of compensation for the environmental destruction that will go with the building

of the dock, will not at some later date seek to do exactly what it has done in this Parliament—move a private Bill to expand the dock, this time on the marshes that are being offered as a nature reserve.
Amendment No. 40, which is linked with amendment No. 39, makes it clear that, should there be a change in the ownership of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, the new owners cannot come to Parliament and seek a private Bill in order to expand upon Trimley marshes, the area that is being offered for a nature reserve.
I do not want to keep the House too long. Much of what I want to say has already been said in this 23-hour debate. However, there has been reference to the fact that the Nature Conservancy Council was not allowed to give evidence on the environmental damage and consequences of the dock.

Mr. Ron Davies: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have had a rethink and that if the Bill were to be re-presented, the NCC would now be allowed to petition? That is the direct result of the circumstances that the original procedure illustrated. Therefore, it would now be possible for the NCC to voice its opposition fully.

Mr. Morley: I cannot give my hon. Friend a definite answer, but, as I understand it, there is that possibility.
However, I have managed to obtain a copy of the NCC's report, which contains details of what it would have told the Committee had it been allowed to do so. Apart from emphasising the NCC's duties, the report goes into the effects of the proposed developments on the nature conservation interest and deals with the inter-tidal area, Fagbury flats, and the River Stour. It says:
The Nature Conservancy Council note that the Bill would result in the destruction of nature conservation interests in an area identified as a proposed Site of Special Scientific Interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and as a site which qualifies for protection under international agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party. This destruction would represent a further loss of habitat following the loss of approximately 10 per cent. of the saltmarsh which, together with adjacent mudflats, was covered by the present docks and industrial developments.
It has also been pointed out that the site was identified by the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance, to which the Government are a signatory. The Government seem to be ratting on Ramsar by refusing to recognise an agreement that they entered into, simply for the short-term gain of the company concerned, so destroying a wetland of international importance.
6.45 pm
The report also contains in great detail the work done by the NCC on the species in the area. It might interest hon. Members to know that, when we talk about the international context of this important site, ringing studies of birds in the area have shown that individuals using the Suffolk and Essex coastal sites, as well as many other parts of Britain also use, at other seasons, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, USSR, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Poland, the German Democratic Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal and Congo Brazzaville.
To save going through the whole detailed report. let me read the concluding paragraph of what would have been put before the Committee had the NCC been allowed to appear. It says:
In view of all I have said, the Nature Conservancy Council has advised that the passage of this Bill would lead


to serious damage to nature conservation interests and the national and international status of the Orwell Estuary. The Nature Conservancy Council consider that the interests of nature conservation would best be served if the Bill is not enacted.
That is a detailed independent scientific examination of the situation.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give the date of that statement by the NCC?

Mr. Morley: It is dated 24 May 1985. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is some significance in that.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: During the course of the Standing Committee that examined the Bill and the negotiations between the county council and other parties, many changes have been made to the Bill—some, indeed, in the House, but particularly in Committee and in negotiations with the county planning authority—which I am sure would change the view that the NCC had at that time.

Mr. Morley: I am not in a position to speak for the NCC. It can speak for itself. However, I do know something of its research techniques and I should be extremely surprised if, having made such a detailed study as this, it would have changed its findings or recommendations in any way.

Mr. Ron Davies: Let us be clear about this, because the point raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) is important. My hon. Friend has recognised that he does not speak for the NCC, nor is he qualified to do so. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is not qualified or capable of speaking for the NCC on this matter either. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the NCC is the statutory body established by the Government and charged with the duty of advising them on nature conservation matters so that we can be clear about its function and role?

Mr. Morley: I shall be glad to do so. Let me summarise the NCC's functions. They are:
the establishment, maintenance and management of Nature Reserves; the provision of advice for the Secretary of State"—
who does not seem to be taking it on this occasion—
or any other Minister for thedevelopment and implementation of policies for and affecting nature conservation in Great Britain ; the provision of advice and dissemination of knowledge about nature conservation"—
again, that is not going very far here—
the commission or support (whether by financial means or otherwise) of research which in the opinion of the Council is relevant to these matters.
The Nature Conservancy Council has a duty under Section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to notify owners, occupiers, the local planning authority and the Secretary of State of any area of land which is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical interest. The Nature Conservancy Council has given notice of its intention so to notify the estuary and intertidal land of the river Orwell including the intertidal land which is the subject of the present Bill.
That could not be any clearer in terms of what the NCC,an independent professional body, thinks about the development of the River Stour.
I turn briefly to the objections to the replacement of the mud flats by Trimley marshes, which is agricultural arable land of low-grade quality. The NCC study points out:

Intertidal areas represent one of the most natural habitats, little affected by man, remaining in Britain. Artificial creation of such areas has not been achieved, despite investigation of the feasibility of this elsewhere in the country. Even if such attempts were made, several years would be required, firstly, to acquire, design, construct and maintain such sites, secondly, to allow sediments to settle and stabilise, thirdly to enable small mud-dwelling animals to establish themselves, and fourthly to allow time for these to grow to sufficient size and density to provide for most bird species. Until this time had elapsed it will be impossible to test whether such creation of habitat is feasible.
That deals with some of the points made earlier in relation to the offer of Trimley marshes for the area that will be destroyed.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has tried during the past few hours to correlate the connection between the company, the Bill and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the Minister of State, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Although there has been a denial of any involvement with either group, I have just watched the right hon. Member in deep conversation with the company. That is a sign of the arrangements that have been going on behind the scenes. It is absolutely disgraceful that a Minister responsible for agriculture and its protection has been acting behind the scenes. It shows what has been happening.

Mr. Morley: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is amazing that after all the things that I have told the House and the wealth of detailed evidence that we have about the impact of the development on our environment and on the international environment, Ministers with responsibility for the environment have not taken part in the debate. Although I accept that this is a private Bill, I am surprised that when a Government body, the NCC, advises Ministers, those Ministers, who are party to international conventions, have chosen not to take that advice or to consider the consequences of the development.

Mr. McCartney: I try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but could you not call back the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) to give us an explanation of the discussions that have taken place? That might throw some light on what has been happening behind the scenes for the past 23 hours. Where is the right hon. Gentleman? He has rushed out of the House—and that says everything.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have no jurisdiction to require any right hon. or hon. Member in the House to speak.

Mr. Morley: I do not wish to say much more, but having put forward my views on these four linked amendments, and bearing in mind that they are designed as friendly amendments to strengthen the Bill and to give some confidence to local people, especially to conservationists, I ask that we ensure that the company is serious when it says that it is prepared to accept the environmental consequences and to recognise that there has been environmental damage. We are asking for an undertaking that Trimley marshes will be protected and will not be vulnerable to any future expansion or development of the dock. It would be outrageous if, having given the undertaking to provide Trimley marshes as a substitute—presumably some money will be spent on it and it will be laid out as a nature reserve—the company reneged


on that at a later date. That might be done by another company. We do not know, because we are talking about years from now and we have no idea what would happen in the circumstances.
I respectfully ask the Minister for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), as a sponsor of the Bill, whether he is willing to accept the four amendments.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I hope that the House will accept that I am anxious to help hon. Members, especially on environmental matters. As a result of our discussions the Bill has been improved on the environmental side in several ways. I should like to suggest one or two other ways in which further environmental protection could be achieved. However, I shall deal first with the amendments.
Clause 16, which the amendments would change, was included in the Bill at the Committee stage wholly at the insistence of the Select Committee—that is to say, our colleagues. In effect, they imposed a clause on the promoters to meet points of concern that had been put to them, primarily by local residents who expressed fears that once the proposed works were completed, additional dock development might take place further along the Orwell. Clause 16 was put in the Bill specifically to create a buffer zone against extending the limits of the Felixstowe dock. It achieves that by prohibiting any further developments in the adjoining Trimley marshes.
However, there are three exceptions and, in fairness, I must tell the House what they are. The further developments that could take place in Trimley marshes, given the general prohibition of clause 16, are, first, developments that are connected with the nature reserve that is to be provided for public benefit by Trinity college and the dock company. The Committee wanted that provision so that the new nature reserve could be created there. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) would welcome that. He would probably like it to be bigger, and perhaps I would, too. However, surely that is a correct exception to the general bar on any further development at Trimley.
The second exception relates to landscaping to ameliorate the effect of the proposed works. The Committee was absolutely right to say that that should be a proper exception to the general bar on any development. The third exception to that general bar is certain developments for farming purposes. As the hon. Gentleman said, that land is not particularly good arable land. Perhaps I could best describe it as modest.
However, there are several farmers, who are tenants of Trinity college. During the passage of the Bill, the fellows of Trinity and especially its enlightened bursar, Mr. John Bradfield, have been at pains to say that they would not be party to a Bill that caused any environmental damage that was not more than compensated for by environmental enhancements. Trinity college has been in the lead in achieving the new nature reserve that is to be placed on Trimley marshes. However, the college has a number of tenant farmers and unfortunately one of them will be required to lose 176 acres of his land because it is needed for the proposed nature reserve. Trinity insisted, and the farmer agreed, that the land should be used for a nature reserve. I am sure that the House, while sympathising with the farmer, will welcome that.
7 pm
I understand the object behind amendments Nos. 37 and 38, hut they remove the exemption from the general

ban on any kind of development in respect of tenant farmers. Under the amendments, such farmers could not put up even medium-sized agricultural buildings without going through normal planning procedures. No other farmer has to do that. The House might not agree, but farmers have a right to erect agricultural buildings without planning consent. Perhaps the law should be changed, but it cannot be right that the only farmers who need to have planning consent are the tenant farmers on Trimley marshes.

Mr. Morley: People are worried because of that problem. Farmers do not need to have permission to erect buildings on their land and that has led to problems in many rural constituencies. Perhaps the law should be examined at some future date.
The tenant farmers have been around for a considerable time. I should have thought that they already had the buildings that they need. If we are to develop a nature reserve the last thing we want is for a large and ugly structure, such as a barn or crop drier, to disfigure the landscape.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I understand that, hut a private Bill is not the instrument for solving a general problem. The suggestion discriminates against farmers who live in a particular area. Tens of thousands of buildings erected by farmers might cause offence but it cannot be right to pick on a particular group.
I have been involved in farming and I know that it is changing rapidly. Changes have been made in the common agricultural policy and in the uses of land. It would be unfair to sterilise a particular group of farmers who, being Trinity's tenants, will have to take account of Trinity's view of the type of buildings that they can erect. Trinity's own reputation is at stake and it will not want to be seen as desecrator of the environment.
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 would prevent for all time the dock company, or any owner of Trimley marshes, from applying to Parliament for amendment to or appeal against the provisions of clause 16. It is a constitutional problem. Hon. Members who have been in the House for some years will see the difficulty of binding a future Parliament so that it cannot amend the clause. If the Labour party happened to have a majority in the House and it wanted to do something about clause 16 it would be prevented from doing so. That would wrongly and unconstitutionally fetter a future House of Commons.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman cannot have his cake and eat it. The Bill makes normal planning procedures unnecessary, yet the Bill's promoters use its technicalities for their own ends. The hon. Gentleman says that the amendments are unconstitutional and that they will fetter Parliament, but he cannot have it both ways. He must accept that some people will want to curtail his efforts.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I understand the hon. Gentleman. For my sins, I was a Minister responsible for planning. One thing that I came to understand was that a number of statutory bodies have no other place to go for planning consent but the House of Commons. For example, the British Railways Board has to come to the House every year with a British Rail Bill because only this House can deal with a statutory body's planning requests. The same applies to the CEGB. Felixstowe is a statutory company,


set up by Parliament. Its access to planning is through this place. It has no other place to go. That became apparent to the Committee when it studied the Bill.
The Bill does not give Felixstowe the ability to evade the planning law. As a statutory body it has to come to Parliament for planning agreement. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman. I am not able to accept the amendments but I understand the concern behind them. I want to help if I can.
I respect the Nature Conservancy Council. As a Minister, I dealt with that organisation frequently. But during negotiations on the Bill enormous numbers of environmental additions were agreed. For example, 176 acres of land are to go into the new wetlands. There will be two or three huge new lagoons particularly suited to various kinds of water bird. Significant changes have been made to improve landscaping. About 500,000 new trees are to be planted—not all the kind that I like. As a result of debates in the House, new powers have been given to the Secretary of State to assist in the protection of navigation. That is important, not only to the big ships but to the small dinghies.

Mr. Morley: While the changes to the wetlands and the lagoons are beneficial, they will not support the same species of bird to be displaced. The fresh lagoons will attract some waders but the habitat for other waders will be destroyed. A habitat will be found for a different range of species but it will not compensate the species that loses its habitat.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: One of the more agreeable features of proceedings on the Bill, despite the length of time that we have spent on it, has been learning to respect one's colleagues whom one has not known well before. The hon. Gentleman's contributions about wildlife last night were fascinating. I learned a lot from him. I hope that he will take that as a sincere compliment.
Of course I recognise that the new provision will not entirely meet that which was available before, but it strikes a balance. When I agreed to promote the Bill I told the company that I would not do so unless I was satisfied that, on balance, the environmental disbenefits—there are bound to be disbenefits—were more than matched by the overall environment enhancements. I believe that we are achieving an improved balance overall.
I conclude with a suggestion to the hon. Member for Wentworth, (Mr. Hardy). In the Felixstowe area there is a liaison committee between the dock company, the county council planners, the local Suffolk Coastal planning authority and the parish council that meets two or three times a year to discuss the interaction of dock company activities on the local community and on the environment. I would be delighted if the hon. Member for Wentworth and his hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe would attend a meeting of the liaison group and openly express their concerns. They would find that they would receive a sympathetic reception and that perhaps some good would come from it.
It is regrettable that in the course of last night's votes some of the amendments that I proposed were lost. We need not recriminate about that. When the Bill goes to another place it might be useful for there to be discussions with the promoters of the Bill to see—I cannot make any promises—whether they would be able to

accommodate further amendments. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not feel obliged to press the amendments and that we can move on to Third Reading.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: If I read the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) correctly, it is that, given the encouragement from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir Eldon Griffiths), that will probably go some way to satisfying us, as there are obvious possibilities of speaking to Members in another place. For that reason, it is not the intention of my hon. Friends to pursue the amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion and Question proposed, That Standing Order No. 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think it is incumbent upon me to remind the House that this is a private Bill and explain that this is a single motion, the effect of which, if agreed to, is that the Bill will be read the Third time. There is no separate Question or Division on Third Reading. The Bill is now open for Third Reading. I call Sir Eldon Griffiths.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am willing to listen to what other hon. Members have to say before I intervene, and I prefer so to do.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I was paying the hon. Member a tribute by giving him the first call. I call Mr. Peter Hardy.

Mr. Hardy: Some hon. Members believe that we opposed the Bill to protect the mud flats, the coastal ecology, and the fauna and flora. I emphasise that our opposition to the Bill was based on the fact that the Government appear to have accepted, with an apparent eager and uniform readiness, that a firm, clear and specific international commitment should be disdained. That sad reality, above all, was the basis of our long hours of sustained, consistent commitment today.

Mr. McCartney: I will not prolong proceedings. We have already been going over 24 hours. On behalf of Labour Members who have participated in the debate, I place on record our rejection of any suggestion that the debate has been anything other than serious. We have been accused of being frivolous and of deploying delaying tactics. No hon. Members who sat through the long debate with a genuine concern to see the best piece of legislation possible could say that we were anything but constructive, both in terms of the amendments that have been made and in what has been said in trying to extract concessions from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir Eldon Griffiths).
We will be watching with interest what happens in another place. Through colleagues in another place, we will seek to improve the Bill even further. As the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated in the last few hours, hopefully there will be a genuine concern to ensure the best possible Bill, albeit there is a fundamental difference as to whether it should be passed.

Mr. Michael Irvine: Some 24 per cent. of the work force of the Felixstowe dock live in Ipswich. It may interest hon. Gentlemen opposite to learn that my Ipswich constituents who work at the Felixstowe dock are all members of the Transport and General Workers Union. What is more, they all support the Bill. They have told me so in no uncertain terms.

Mr. Morley: Where has the hon. Member been?

Mr. Hardy: Where has the hon. Member been?

Mr. Irvine: The hon. Gentlemen ask where I have been during the past 24 hours. I spent a good many of them in the Chamber. If my constituents who work in the Felixstowe dock had heard some of the incessant points of order, some of the crass meanderings and some of the filibustering that took place, they would have been not merely angry but aghast. I am glad to have seen in the most recent hours of the debate a much better spirit—the spirit of greater co-operation. That is very much to the good. I am glad to see it and I know that my constituents who work in the Felixstowe dock would agree.

Mr. Morley: The Ipswich dock.

Mr. Irvine: Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further about the Ipswich dock, I would remind him that just as the port of Felixstowe has expanded and prospered over the past years, so has the port of Ipswich. It has done so by good management, by good labour relations and by turning ships around rapidly. Ipswich has its own plans for further expansion.
On behalf of my constituents who work in the port of Felixstowe, I extend their considerable thanks to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who saw the Bill through the late and long hours of last night at considerable inconvenience to themselves.

Sir John Farr: I briefly congratulate my hon. Friends who, after a number of years, have succeeded in getting through a Bill that is of extreme importance to my constituents in the east Midlands. We shall look forward to Felixstowe becoming a great success. It will help our continental trade and, from visits I made to projects describing how much land was needed and other matters a couple of years or so ago, my constituents, industrialists and myself came to the conclusion that we had to get the Bill on the statute book.
It was deplorable how time was wasted last night. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) spoke for over an hour, and I do not know why he took the view that he did. Perhaps he is an NUM-sponsored Member. Certainly, he has a constituency near the coalfields. But the consistent time-wasting last night by the hon. Member for Rother Valley——

Mr. Ron Davies: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It appears that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there not a well-established and reasonable precedent in the House that if an hon. Member wishes to make a personal attack on another, he will at least have the courtesy to notify the other hon. Member so that the latter can be present in the Chamber to defend himself?

The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) well knows that my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is a former member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. We all know why my hon. Friend made his comments about birds. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ensure that the hon. Member for Harborough restricts himself to the normal courtesies of the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had a good and constructive debate in the past few hours, and I hope that it will remain at the same high standard at which it has been held for the past two or three hours.

Mr. Lofthouse: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not true that when an hon. Member refers to another hon. Member he should get his constituency right? The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) mentioned the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), meaning my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). He also said that my hon. Friend was a member of the NUM. That is not true.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Boundary Commission often plays tricks on us.

Mr. Hardy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. To establish the record, the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), as an official in the all-party conservation committee, should share the interests and commitments that some of us have demonstrated. This is not the first time that the hon. Gentleman has contradicted his position outside the Chamber in a conservation debate. I am not a member of the National Union of Mineworkers, but I am a member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Sir John Farr: Of course, I accept unreservedly what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sorry that he thought that I was being rude or insulting if I suggested that he might be a member of the NUM. However, it was difficult to understand why he and his hon. Friends spent so much time last night on trivia and Divisions——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This debate is very restrictive. The scope of the debate on the motion includes only the arguments for and against Third Reading, and I would appreciate it at this stage if the hon. Member restricted his remarks to the scope of the debate.

Sir John Farr: Possibly one says these things because one has been through the night and is short of sleep, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was merely trying to point out that the behaviour of some hon. Members had been outrageous——

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is now trying to undermine the competence of the Chair. I sat through most of the debate and on no occasion did I hear trivia debated or see any outrageous behaviour exhibited by my hon. Friends. If the hon. Gentleman makes these accusations, he must specify what they are and say why he is not prepared to recognise the dignity of the Chair.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should not worry about that—the Chair is pretty tough and can take care of itself.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I wish to place on record our strong disapproval of the comments made by the hon. Member


for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), who, as far as I am aware, played a sedentary role in our debate, as he did in previous debates. He certainly did not play a remarkably active role. The hon. Gentleman has tapped the rich vein of the subject of those whose contributions were or were not worth while.
I also want to place on record the warmth of feeling felt by my hon. Friends for the work of Ken Weetch, the former hon. Member for Ipswich, who did a great deal of work over a period of many years to expose the faults in the Bill. We have continued to try to highlight those faults in the past 24 hours. Ken Weetch takes considerable credit for the fact that the Bill has taken so long to get through.
We have received a degree of co-operation on some aspects during the past 24 hours, but the Bill is fundamentally flawed because, by its very nature, the process by which it has come through the House provides no acceptable way for allowing planning permission and the planning system to act. That should be possible, given that the Bill affects huge communities and will have a national impact on industry and conservation.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that I agree that this procedure is not acceptable for local authority planning decisions? Does he also accept that one of the beneficial offshoots of the Bill's passage has been that the media are looking with fresh eyes at lobbying procedures and the suborning of hon. Members, which was brought into sharp focus by the proposed champagne party? People outside the House are looking afresh at the lobbying interests, because they have brought the House into disrepute.

Mr. Lloyd: Of course, my hon. Friend has raised an important point. One of the problems of this planning process is that it leaves us open to the lobbyists, who are virtually unaccountable, save that they have considerably greater amounts of money to spread out on largesse and information than those who are trying to protect their own local interests. So the planning process, as pursued by the private Bill mechanism, is severely flawed. My hon. Friends and I welcome the fact that there is to be a review of the entire process, and we look forward to the prospect of proper local control over planning with the fallback position of the Secretary of State for the Environment, which already applies to the bulk of planning applications that are not put through by those who are very rich.
The Bill is inadequate in a number of ways. The promoters say that it is effectively about the port of Felixstowe, and see it, therefore, as a transport Bill. Opposition Members are concerned about a form of unregulated planning for the private sector, because the Government are prepared to reward their friends in the private sector in a way that does not occur in other ports around the country. Felixstowe has always enjoyed a privileged position. It is privileged in any case because of its geographical location. That is an accident of geography, but it is ironic that the Bill is being promoted at a time when the amount of traffic through the ports of this country is beginning to stabilise. Indeed, some would say that it is on the point of decline. We have the prospect of the Channel tunnel—I oppose it—in the not-toodistant future. That will affect Felixstowe as a port and render some of the changes sought by the Bill's promoters less than useful.
We also condemn the Bill because the Government's ports policy fails to be rational. It consists of a piecemeal approach whereby some are rewarded and some find themselves disadvantaged. We also criticise the Bill because it begins the process of erosion of the national dock labour scheme. [Interruption.] Conservative Members must know that their own Government are not in a position, and do not want, to begin to take out the scheme, because, although they know one of the benefits of eroding the whole scheme, they also know two of the difficulties. They want to do it piecemeal, sneakily, through back-door methods in the way that the Government always work, in a low-key, underhand, shifty way.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: As my hon. Friend knows, I have been in Brussels until now discussing with some of the European Commissioners the transport implications of the Felixstowe development. Given that we are to have a Channel tunnel, the Commissioners can see no reason why there should be such a demand for extra container capacity—a point that the Opposition have been making all along. The points that my hon. Friend is making so lucidly are underlined by the fact that we have now set up a Joint Committee of the two Houses to review private Bill procedures. That is because of the exploitation of the system that has been revealed in this exercise.

Mr. Lloyd: I gave way to my hon. Friend for two reasons. One was because of her role in ably pursuing certain issues on behalf of the members of the trade union by which she is sponsored, the Transport and General Workers Union. My hon. Friend played a great role in trying to expose the unsatisfactory nature of the private Bill procedure.

Mr. Rogers: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a great deal of indignation about this Bill because of the connection between its promoters and, probably, the financers of the champagne party and the Department of Trade and Industry and the Conservative party. I noticed that one of the main beneficiaries may be P and O. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has put that on record. The chairman of that company is Sir Jeffrey Sterling who, since 1983, has been a special adviser to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Not only that, but P and O is a substantial contributor to the Conservative party and Sir Jeffrey is a close friend of the Prime Minister. Does my hon. Friend find it extremely disturbing that the Government are operating what is, in effect, a three-line Whip? The Prime Minister was brought in at odd hours of the night. What was the reason for that? Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell me.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend touches on a rich seam when he draws attention to the close personal relationships that exist between senior personnel in P and O, now the sponsoring company, and members of the Government.

Mr. Fallon: I know that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair to the House on this point. He draws attention to the close personal relationship that may or may not exist between Sir Jeffrey Sterling and the Prime Minister. Will he also draw the attention of the House to the similar relationship that must exist between Sir Jeffrey Sterling and the right hon. and learned Member for Monk lands, East (Mr. Smith) who appointed him to the board of British Airways?

Mr. Lloyd: At the moment we are discussing P and O and the relationship that exists between that company and the legislation now before the House. That is massively different from any relationship to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. His intervention points to the sensitivity of Conservative Members on these issues. They feel vulnerable because they know that this system of planning allows for graft and for a degree of familiarity that ought to be unacceptable.
The Bill goes back many years. But for the sterling work of our colleague, the former hon. Member for Ipswich, Ken Weetch, this Bill would probably have shot through its various stages. The fact that it did not was a source of great annoyance to the promoters and to their friends in Parliament. Many of us did not know until fairly recently just how high those friends in Parliament were. One of my hon. Friends discovered in the Division Lobby the other day that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is really the cat and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) is merely the cat's paw. We found that the voice and the vote were separated on at least one occasion.
It is possible to go a little deeper because last year P and O spent about £30,000 of its shareholders' money in this new shareholding democracy. As far as we are aware, there was no ballot about that and no thought of the political levy being introduced. From the point of view of P and O, that money is a reasonable investment because we are nearly at the final stage in the passage of the Bill. We know that the P and O return from Felixstowe will be very high.
Some people say that P and O no longer wants to develop Felixstowe because it knows that Felixstowe may not have quite the future that it appeared to have some years ago. However, the company wants outline planning permission so that, if it wants to sell the area its capital value, its asset value, will be increased. The House is transforming an asset into an item of considerably greater value and we are performing a useful role for the private sector. Conservative Members may want to do that, but the Opposition do not.
We have spent a considerable time looking at the Bill with deep suspicion because we do not think that it is satisfactory. We know about its defects in terms of ports policy and my hon. Friends have given sterling service over the last 24 hours, and before, by drawing attention to the environmental damage that the Bill will cause.
We have received some help, and in that respect I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. However, the help was on nothing like the scale that we wanted. The Bill is defective on environmental grounds and nothing that we have seen at its various stages satisfies us. We are grateful for what we have got, because it ameliorates the worst consequences, but it does not transform a basically bad Bill into a good one. That makes all the more galling the eventually-to-be-cancelled Jubilee Room party to which Conservative Members were invited. Those who had a late night and perhaps succumbed to the temptation of whatever was on offer——

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: We did not get it.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman insists that he did not get it. He will have to speak for himself about what that means. We know that the party was cancelled because of the massive publicity generated by my hon. Friends. They drew attention to what was going on and to an

unacceptable system. That system adds a further level of graft to the already defective planning system of private Bills. The House must take that seriously because it is an unacceptable kind of lobbying.
Conservative Members know that, and they made great efforts to deny that the whole thing was taking place until they were found almost with their fingers in the till. We think that they were just quick enough to pull out heir fingers, but the better interpretation is that P and O said, "We have already got these people for our mugs. We will not deliver the goods." P and O must have wondered whether Conservative Members would squeal and say, "They bought us but they refused to pay." Conservative Members know that they were duped and taken for a ride at very little cost.
We know that the Prime Minister was overheard saying to the Leader of the House that she did not care if' the Government lost Wednesday's business. Perhaps the Leader of the House will confirm or deny that. The Prime Minister did not care about losing Wednesday's business because she does not care about Scottish Question Time. She did not care about the Opposition day, although she did care about the Bill, her friends in P and O and the £30,000 pay-off to the Conservative party from the company, which, because of its terrible publicity this year, as a result of events at Zeebrugge — which will eventually come before this House — is seeking rehabilitation.
The patronage system operates throughout the House. Opposition Members believe that this planning system is corrupt. It allows corruption to take place within these walls. That is a very serious charge to make, but it must be made. The private Bill system stinks to high heaven and it is time to we got rid of it.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) on his handling of the Bill during the last 24 hours. I very much appreciated the comments made by Opposition Members who know and care a great deal about the conservation elements in the Bill. I served for five months with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) dealing with this Bill in Committee. We concluded that we had committed to the House a balanced Bill which matched the national interests of ports with a healthy respect for the environment in the area. The debate during the last 24 hours has shown that this concern is shared by the House.
We have a good, though perhaps not perfect. Bill, but Bills never are perfect. I commend it to the House, and I particularly commend the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. We have tried to meet the points that have been raised. The Bill is worthy of support.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It would be appropriate spoke before my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). He paid graceful tributes to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), and some of his colleagues, for their comments on environmental matters. Clearly, the Bill has examined industrial interests, port policy and environmental interests. Some tributes have


been earned during the debate, although some things may have been said of which, in the light of day, some hon. Members may not feel so proud.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds has guided this Bill through. It has been more exhaustingly considered, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, than many other private Bills. My hon. Friend has guided it with courtesy, good humour and, as hon. Members will accept, tolerance in the face of provocation. I also want to pay tribute to all Committee Members because the Committees took a good deal of time and people recognise that serious efforts were put into the Bill at those stages. I recognise also that, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) had not been barred, he would have been able to do in the House what he does in his constituency—promote the interests of his constituents.
I ought to declare an interest in the matter. I was lobbied two years ago by shop stewards at Felixstowe. On Second Reading, on 13 May 1985, Ken Weetch, to whom tribute has been paid, said that Felixstowe had earned its expansion and that there had been associated improvements for Ipswich, although the good fortune of Ipswich was not linked solely to Felixstowe. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), the Minister of Public Transport, talked about environmental interests. I want to repeat the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds when he pledged that he would be a party to the Bill going on to the statute book only if the disbenefits it may bring to the environment are outweighed by the environmental benefits.
The Government's well established transport and ports policy is not to interfere with or influence port investment decisions. We believe that port capacity should be provided to satisfy those who use ports—shippers, shipowners and members of the Transport and General Workers Union working, for example, at Felixstowe. Those who want to provide ports should be free to do so provided that they obtain any necessary statutory powers and do not look to the taxpayer to finance the development.
Clearly, users have wanted to see Felixstowe expand. Its container and ferry business has trebled since 1975 and it is now the leading container port in the United Kingdom and fifth in Europe. It has won a worldwide reputation. On my visits around the world promoting British business in connection with transport, the consultants from Felixstowe are well regarded and are doing a good deal of work for British manufacturers as well as for their own reputations.
There has been enormous investment in Felixstowe and it is one of the most modern ports in the world. The developments proposed in the Bill raised questions about the safety of navigation in Harwich harbour. Those are important questions and I am glad that they have been satisfactorily resolved during the progress of the Bill.
The Government also have an interest in the impact of the proposed extension of the port on the local environment and wildlife. Those questions have been debated extensively. No one can deny that the port development would have an adverse impact. The promoters have been very willing to accept many provisions in the Bill to minimise that impact and give real protection to environmental interests. The Committee

considered very carefully the petitions that were brought on those points and made strong and positive proposals for strengthening the Bill, especially in connection with the protection of Trimley marshes and the landscaping of the new port development.
I want to deal briefly and relatively lightly with some of the comments that have been made during the debate. The involvement of P and O with Felixstowe began after the Second Reading of the Bill on 13 May 1985. All hon. Members, ranging from the Chairman of Ways and Means to Back Benchers, wanted to see the issue resolved rather than have the House continue with debate after debate which merely showed that the debate had become stuck. For that reason there was a motion to lift the Ten o'clock rule.
I do not believe that comments picked up outside the Chamber in relation to whether people were prepared to lose Wednesday's business stem only from hon. Members of one party. People entered the debate today with their eyes open. Indeed, those who contributed most to the debate may want to take most of the credit for losing Wednesday's business.
The Bill has been a classic example of what can often be a real and difficult conflict between industrial and environmental interests. The arguments have been fully rehearsed and considered in depth. The Bill has had a very good run in the House and the Government recommend that it should receive a Third Reading.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: This is not the time for crowing or sniping. It is the time to go home after a very long sitting. No hon. Member who has served on any Committee in connection with the Bill at any stage will ever forget it. The Bill has been before the House for four years. By present estimates, it has been debated for 189 hours and it received a record consideration in Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton). Tonight it has probably received the most vigorously contested Report stage for a long time.

Mr. Grocott: With regard to the precise point about the length of time that the Bill has been debated and the period during which it has been debated, will the hon. Gentleman concede that it would be wrong for those hon. Members who did not have the privilege of being hon. Members of the House during most of the time that the Bill was being considered—in total about 140 hon. Members, including 70 of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends who are clearly baffled by the Bill as none of them has spoken or contributed to the debate—and did not have the benefit of listening to the four years of debate, to vote tonight? Does he agree that the proper course would be for them to abstain?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I repeat what I said at the beginning of my comments—that there will be no crowing or sniping at this stage.
The Bill has received record consideration by the House. I am sure that it will lead to some reconsideration of the private Bill procedure and I need say no more about it than that.
I want to say a word about my colleagues who have been involved with the Bill. The Bill has made it possible for me to get to know many Opposition Members whom I did not know so well before. I have enjoyed getting to


know them and have appreciated their knowledge of birds and the environment. Opposition Members may not always have been at their best, but they have not always been at their worst. I want to thank them for their contributions to the improvements of the Bill.
Finally, I want to thank my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches. There are too many for me to thank personally. Perhaps I may just say that I have the fortune—or the misfortune—of being the neighbour of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Felixstowe and Sizewell are in my right hon. Friend's constituency and somehow or other, because my right hon. Friend is a Minister, I always seem to get stuck with dealing with my right hon. Friend's constituency affairs. That is a pleasure and I am glad that my right hon. Friend is present in the Chamber tonight.
I have been particularly grateful to receive the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant). I am also grateful to so many of my hon. Friends who remained in the House when it was inconvenient to be here. I believe that we have achieved something which is good for the dockers of Felixstowe, for the shippers, the business people, the merchants of the area, for East Anglia and for our country. I wish the Bill well.

Mr. Dobson: This may be a rather unusual procedure, but this has also been a rather unusual Bill. As has already been reported to the House, it is intended that both Houses of Parliament should consider the future of private Bill procedures.
We have faced a curious situation over recent days and nights. Faced with a Bill that was putting forward a somewhat anarchic ports policy, removing the national dock labour scheme, advocating a policy likely to inflict environmental damage on the area, an area of outstanding natural beauty and of special scientific interest, it seems that the Bill was substituting the judgment and procedures of the House for the normal planning control procedures that apply in most parts of the country. That means that the outcome of the Bill is a substantial financial advantage for the promoters. They might have achieved many of those things simply by seeking planning permission like anyone else who cannot afford to promote a private Bill and who did not have friends in high places to help get the Bill through.
We have heard much from my hon. Friends about redshanks and greenshanks. However, the blueshanks have been the most important birds in this matter. Why has there been an iron determination on the Government's part to get the Bill through to the extent of involving the personal intervention of the Prime Minister exhorting people to vote and join her in voting?
There is nothing special about the Bill. It has nothing to commend it to hon. Members from all parts of the country. The Opposition believe that the only thing which demands special attention is the nature of the Bill's promoters. In those circumstances, it behoves us and you too, Mr. Speaker, as guardian of the reputation of the House, to consider what restraints and restrictions would have been placed on the members of district and county planning committees had they been making similar decisions to those made by the House tonight.
If we examine the report of the Salmon committee on the standards of conduct in public life, we see that many requirements that would normally be applied to a member of a county or district planning authority have certainly not been met. Had the members of a planning authority been promised wining and dining so that they could sustain their attention and come and vote, that would have been a criminal offence on the part of both those offering and those taking.
When we know, as we do, that P and O is a major contributor to Conservative party funds, we accept that as a generality—just as Conservative Members tend to accept that trade unions make substantial contributions to the Labour party. They do so because they believe that the generality of Labour's policies will suit them. Similarly, those in private industry tends to support the Conservative party on the ground that the generality of the policies of that party will suit them.
You, Mr. Speaker, are bound to exercise your influence on the procedures to be followed in future on private Bills. When the future is discussed, you will draw on your experience. Surely we move into an entirely different area when a private company puts money into the funds of a party while promoting a private Bill at the same time, and receives the sort of response that has been received from the Government.
We know that the former chairman of the Tory party, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), is the local Member of Parliament and has been a prominent member of the Tory party. We also know that the chairman of the company has been heavily involved with the Tory party, and in giving industrial advice to t he Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We know that even some Conservative Members were embarrassed by the ludicrous lobbying procedures that were attempted yesterday, until the company and its advisers were persuaded by bad publicity to drop them.
If the House is to retain a good reputation in future, we should not be faced with the squalid financially and politically motivated manoeuvres that today led to Scottish Questions not being reached, and to a debate on transport covering the whole country not being reached. All that has been sacrificed so that Conservative Members can continue to benefit from financial contributions from the Bill's promoters.

Question put, That Standing Order No. 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 101.

Division No. 67]
[8 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Aitken, Jonathan
Benyon, W.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy


Allason, Rupert
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alton, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amos, Alan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowis, John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Ashby, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Ashdown, Paddy
Brazier, Julian


Aspinwall, Jack
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Robert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Baldry, Tony
Burt, Alistair


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Butcher, John


Beggs, Roy
Butler, Chris


Beith, A. J.
Butterfill, John






Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Latham, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lawrence, Ivan


Carrington, Matthew
Lee, John (Pendle)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Chapman, Sydney
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lightbown, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Livsey, Richard


Colvin, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lord, Michael


Cope, John
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Cormack, Patrick
McCrindle, Robert


Couchman, James
MacGregor, John


Cran, James
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Maclean, David


Curry, David
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Madel, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Major, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
Malins, Humfrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Mans, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dunn, Bob
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Durant, Tony
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Eggar, Tim
Mellor, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fallon, Michael
Mills, lain


Farr, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fearn, Ronald
Moate, Roger


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Monro, Sir Hector


Fookes, Miss Janet
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Moss, Malcolm


Franks, Cecil
Moynihan, Hon C.


French, Douglas
Neale, Gerrard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Neubert. Michael


Gill, Christopher
Newton, Tony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Onslow, Cranley


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gow, Ian
Page, Richard


Gower, Sir Raymond
Paice, James


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Patnick, Irvine


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Pawsey, James


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Portillo, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Rhodes James, Robert


Harris, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hayward, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hind, Kenneth
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Howard, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Ryder, Richard


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Irvine, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Janman, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shersby, Michael


Key, Robert
Sims, Roger


Kilfedder, James
Skeet, Sir Trevor


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Kirkwood, Archy
Speed, Keith


Knapman, Roger
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Knowles, Michael
Stern, Michael


Knox, David
Stevens, Lewis


Lang, Ian
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)





Sumberg, David
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Summerson, Hugo
Wallace, James


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Waller, Gary


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Ward, John


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wheeler, John


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thorne, Neil
Wilkinson, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Woodcock, Mike


Trippier, David
Yeo, Tim


Viggers, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waddington, Rt Hon David



Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waldegrave, Hon William
Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Jerry Hayes.


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Janner, Greville


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Beckett, Margaret
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bell, Stuart
Macdonald, Calum


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bidwell, Sydney
McLeish, Henry


Boateng, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Maxton, John


Buchan, Norman
Meale, Alan


Buckley, George
Michael, Alun


Caborn, Richard
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Morgan, Rhodri


Clay, Bob
Morley, Elliott


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mullin, Chris


Cousins, Jim
Murphy, Paul


Crowther, Stan
Nellist, Dave


Cummings, J.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cunliffe, Lawrence
O'Brien, William


Cunningham, Dr John
Patchett, Terry


Darling, Alastair
Pendry, Tom


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Dixon, Don
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dobson, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Douglas, Dick
Reid, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dunnachie, James
Robertson, George


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Rowlands, Ted


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Faulds, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Flynn, Paul
Snape, Peter


Foster, Derek
Stott, Roger


Foulkes, George
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Fraser, John
Turner, Dennis


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Wall, Pat


Galbraith, Samuel
Walley, Ms Joan


Galloway, George
Walters, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Graham, Thomas
Wareing, Robert N.


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Grocott, Bruce
Wilson, Brian


Hardy, Peter
Winnick, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Henderson, Douglas



Hinchliffe, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mr. Allan Rogers and Mr. Ian McCartney.


Illsley, Eric



Ingram, Adam

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Points of Order

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), to impugn the honour of the Prime Minister and Conservative Members who supported the Bill? Is it not cant and hypocrisy of the highest order when we all know that the reason why Labour Members opposed the Bill is that the Labour party is in the pocket of the Transport and General Workers Union and—[interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Some pretty nasty things have been said about the Bill. Let us leave it at that.

Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The 30,000 pieces of silver having been satisfactorily earned, I should like to draw your attention to an item on the tapes this evening under the heading :
Labour Chief Whip Quizzed on 'Tea Room Punch-up'." [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did it occur in here?

Mr. Wilson: Is it in order for, as I read from the tapes, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), whom I should have great difficulty identifying among the serried ranks on the Conservative Benches, to produce an item of news for public dissemination on the tapes, on the basis of an alleged incident which, I understand, has no substance in fact? I am a relatively new Member of the House, but I am old enough in life to despise McCarthyism, and the principle of McCarthyism is that one spreads a smear and then challenges others to deny it——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the point of order that has been put to me has anything to do with me, but carry on.

Mr. Wilson: If the tactic of Conservative Members is to impugn the honour of the Opposition by smear without a scintilla of evidence and then challenge others to deny it, the principles of free communications and free movement in the House are under severe challenge.
It is claimed in the communication on the wires that one of the 50 Scottish Labour Members of the House was involved in a punch-up. Within that claim there is guilt by association. Is it in order for individual Members to seek to create publicity by smear, to disseminate lies and fabrications about events that did not take place, in order to gain cheap publicity and diversion? I suggest—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know anything about that incident. The hon. Gentleman showed me that extract from the tapes. I am not responsible for anything that may or may not happen outside the Chamber of the House. I have no knowledge of it at all, and it is not a matter of order anyway.

Mr. Peter Snape: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) made two allegations against Labour Members. It is one thing for any of us in the House to be accused of hypocrisy. I am not sure whether it is parliamentary, but I shall leave

that to you, Mr. Speaker. However, I must say, as a member of the National Union of Railwaymen, that for any member of the NUR to be accused of being in the pockets of the TGWU is little short of scandalous; I hope that you will ensure, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that disgraceful allegation.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that that did not touch upon the hon. Member's honour.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. That statement should be withdrawn. As you know, Mr. Speaker. I was here all last night and I do not believe that it is possible for there to be a row in the House and me not know about it. It is the only place I go apart from here, and I never saw any altercations. I saw somebody hippity-hoppiting along, but that is another story. It has obviously been a fabrication from start to finish. However, I have another point of order that is also serious.
Last night we were trying to save those birds on the salt marshes of Felixstowe. We were supporting the Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the rest. While Conservative Members were trying to make money out Felixstowe, we were trying to save the redshanks, the greenshanks, the ringed plover and the Brent geese. To help us with our researches, along with my right hon. Friend. the Chief Whip, we were using the "Book of Birds", a valuable book that might be needed in future, and it has gone missing. Now that is serious. When we clean these Benches we must look for the book. It does not belong to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) got it, but I think he got it from somebody else. That is the matter to concentrate on today.

Mr. Speaker: I will look into it.

Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If it is a point of order, it is more likely to be for the Leader of the House than for me.

Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a matter for the Leader of the House, or for me?

Mr. Douglas: It is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker.
It is not my style to raise matters of frivolity. I have listened attentively to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I know we all have good fun in this place. [Interruption.] I am not going to rise to that. This is a matter involving procedures outside the Chamber. I know from my relatively long experience of this place that there are certain matters of etiquette in regard to behaviour in the House and outside, which revolve around good manners of all hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) has made assertions about behaviour in the Tea Room. I recognise that that is not within your province, Mr. Speaker, but I appeal through you, to the usual channels, which I know you do not recognise, to examine what has been said. I respectfully ask you to reflect on what has been said, and through your good offices to put a stop to this type of klyping, as we say in Scotland, because all sides can play this game, but if that happens it will be to the detriment of good behaviour and understanding among hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can bring this matter to some form of conclusion by saying that I am concerned about the reputation of the House and hon. Members. It is important for us to set a good example in the Chamber. We resolve our disagreements by argument, but we should never resolve them by any other form of anger or fisticuffs elsewhere. I hope that private conversations or what happens in or around this building should never go outside this community.

Mr. John Maxton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I think that is enough. Later—

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to the earlier point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), you rightly said that you did not believe it right that hon. Members should tell stories of events that went on in the Tea Room. It must be made clear to you and the House that this is not a story about something that happened in the Tea Room; it is a complete and utter fabrication. It is a lie. There is no truth whatever in the story. Whether we like it or not, there are specific Scottish media and press and that is exactly the sort of story that they will pick up. Because no names are mentioned, the honour of every Scottish Member is being impugned by another hon. Member. I know that you do not have responsibility for that, but perhaps you should make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman, who has impugned the character of every Scottish Member, to come to the House and make a full apology.

Mr. Speaker: I say again that I am aware of the standards that we should maintain in this place.

Mr. George Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is very unfair after a day like this, but I shall have to take it.

Mr. Foulkes: I ask this because I know that what you have just said is true and that you are aware of the position of the House and hon. Members. Would it not be in order for you to arrange for the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) to make a personal statement to the House? There is a procedure for that. Fifty Scottish Labour Members are extremely worried about this, and that is a large proportion of hon. Members of the House. Surely it is in order for you and within your power, Mr. Speaker, to get that man to the Bar of the House to tell the truth. He has no information. He has made statements based on total fabrication. He is casting slurs upon 50 hon. Members. If you do not have the power to bring that man to the House to make a personal statement, it will be a sad state of affairs.

Mr. Speaker: The whole House knows that I am responsible for what goes on in the Chamber. It cannot possibly be right for the Speaker to be responsible for what goes on in private rooms in this place.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that there are two sides in the press report, not just the Scottish side. Therefore, the matter concerns the whole House. If that man is proved to have lied and the matter gets into the press, as it will tomorrow, the House needs an apology from him. Therefore, is it in order for you to demand that, if he is proved to have lied to get publicity, he comes to the House to apologise?

Mr. Speaker: Again, I have to say that many things will be said in private rooms, such as dining rooms, in this place. I cannot be held responsible for comments that are made outside the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless have heard what has been said about the matter. If he is a man of honour, I am sure that he will take the appropriate action himself.

Business of the House

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for tomorrow will now be as follows:
THURSDAY 12 NOVEMBER — Motions On Social Security Orders and Regulations. Details are in the Official Report.
That will be followed by a debate on a motion on the Supplementary Estimate on the purchase and sale of shares in BP.
The Consolidated Fund Bill, already announced for the beginning tomorrow, will now be taken at the beginning on Monday 16 November.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I wonder whether, instead of that business tomorrow, my right hon. Friend will have a short debate on the astonishing refusal in a written answer this afternoon of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an assurance that the Bank of England will not use its funds to buy shares in Eurotunnel, as any such move would drive a coach and horses through repeated assurances given about the Bill? Will my right hon. Friend suggest that we have a debate or statement on this issue tomorrow, instead of what is planned?

Mr. Wakeham: No, Sir. I cannot change the business for tomorrow.

Mr. David Steel: Can the Leader of the House give an assurance that the desultory exchanges this afternoon on the subject of the British Airways-British Caledonian merger will not be a substitute for a full statement and or debate later on aviation policy? If no such debate takes place, the public will be left with the impression that the Government look after the owners, the Labour Opposition look after the unions and no one looks after the customers. Can we have a debate?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of what the right hon. Gentleman says and I think that this is best pursued through the usual channels.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Can the Leader of the House persuade the Secretary of State for Scotland to find time tomorrow for a statement about the White Paper on Scottish homes? As the Leader of the House will know, a statement should have been made today. In view of the damaging effects of this White Paper and the concern now being caused in Scotland because of the fears of rent rises and changes in conditions for tenants, will he arrange for time to be made available tomorrow for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement so that we can ask questions, as befits such a major measure?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall not be provocative now. I shall refer that matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: My right hon. Friend seemed rather cursory in his dismissal of the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). Could he please give some more serious attention to this important departure from all the previous assurances and be ready to answer

questions on this tomorrow afternoon? Is he aware that the only previous occasions when the Bank of England has bought shares in companies were in the cases of Johnson Matthey and Slater Walker? Are we now to have the great Eurotunnel gravy train following those doubtful precedents? More serious attention must be given to this worrying matter.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked whether I would change tomorrow's business, and I said I would not. That remains the position. If my hon. Friends wish to pursue the matter at business questions tomorrow, there will he more time to give a more considered answer.

Mr. Bob Cryer: In view of the debate that we have just had on lobbying in this place, including lobbying all-party groups, is the Leader of the House aware that, as a result of the background to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, with its dubious business of champagne parties cancelled because of criticism, refreshments in the Jubilee Room and fake Whips sent out with refreshments to offer as a direct inducement to hon. Members to stay and vote, the media are waking up to the fact that a large army of people are making money from lobbying in this place and persuading Members of Parliament to vote one way or another? If we do not take action and do something about it, the media will push and push until something is done from the outside inside, as happened on the last occasion, which involved a series of scandals about a gentleman called Poulson.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman raises a point to which we shall return from time to time, but we shall certainly not have a debate about that tomorrow, or a statement. The hon. Gentleman can find other ways of pursuing the matter if he wants to. The suggestion that a few glasses of champagne will change the votes of any hon. Member on either side of the House is an insult to the House and certainly to me, as I did not get any of it either.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for keeping you and me from your excellent table for a moment longer. May I stress to the Leader of the House, as somebody who must unfortunately be away tomorrow on pressing constituency business, that I share the concern of my colleagues that we should hale a full statement tomorrow on the Government's attitude to the Bank of England departing from past pledges and precedents in possibly funding part of the Eurotunnel issue?

Mr. Wakeham: I certainly note what my hon. Friend says and I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Dave Nellist: May I correct the Leader of the House in his answer to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), in which he said that he could not change tomorrow's business? He has come to the House this evening precisely to make a statement about a change in tomorrow's business.
I have an axe to grind. Why is tomorrow not given over to a debate or statement on the disgraceful answer to a written question from the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled that workers who lose their jobs will be denied up to 26 weeks unemployment benefit—double the existing period, which itself is double what it was a few months ago? Is not that a mechanism by which


unscrupulous employers will exercise a whip hand, particularly over non-unionised workers, so that they do not complain about wages and conditions, knowing that if they are sacked they lose the right to six months unemployment benefit? Why are we not having a debate or a statement on that, instead of the proposed business?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman, with a little of his customary ingenuity, may find that the points he wishes to make will be in order tomorrow.

Mr. David Shaw: Further to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr.

Brazier), for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to my constituents' anxiety at any suggestion of the Bank of England being prepared to finance Eurotunnel in any way, shape or form? That will be directly contrary to all the assurances and promises that have been given to date and it would present unfair competition when the principle of the whole Bill is fair competition.

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything more to what I have already said. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am absolutely certain that none of the Government's undertakings will be broken.

Sport and Recreation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: It is at least two years since I last sought to raise matters on the Adjournment debate procedure. On the last occasion, the hour was late. This time, I have been in and around the Chamber for almost 39 hours. I fear that the Speaker's Office is trying to tell me something. However, the future policy on sport and recreation is important. The long wait only adds to my resolve to raise the topic on the Floor of the House.
For many years—I intend no disrespect to previous holders of my hon. Friend's Ministerial office—sport and recreation were Cinderella responsibilities tacked on to the main tasks of previous Under-Secretaries of State. In this new Parliament, with an additional Minister with prime responsibility for sport and recreation being appointed to the Department of the Environment, I hope that the topic will lose the Cinderella fringe image and take its proper place. That the additional Minister is my hon. Friend the for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) seems to indicate that the Government now hold out a great future for sport and recreation. The Prime Minister could not have entrusted the portfolio to a more distinguished rowing colleague.
To put the subject in perspective, it should be noted that sport and recreation are estimated to employ 180,000 people directly and another 200,000 indirectly. The statistics are a little elastic, because it is not an easy industry to calculate, but it is said that it generates £7,000 million of turnover. I suppose that central and local government probably spend nearly £1 billion of that sum. I am talking of an activity that, in one way or another, has 21 million participants and 6·5 million club members. We do not have to go further than those statistics to place on record the fact that sport and recreation represent a major economic motor within our society and should not and must not be pushed on to the back burner.
Tragically, we still have 2·75 million unemployed people. Although that figure, happily, is on the way down, it will be a long time before we can say that the problem has been defeated—if, indeed, it can ever be totally defeated in this rapidly changing world. To that, we must add the ever-shorter working week and the growth in the number of part-time and self-employed working people. We are clearly looking at a future life style that is different from that which confronted the House 10 or 20 years ago. Such trends point to an ever greater need to look at sport and recreation as an essential part of our modern society, and not just a throw-away afterthought. Like other sectors of our national budget, it, too, deserves proper and adequate resources. The scale of the potential social and economic pay-back justifies proper funding.
I shall paraphrase or interpret the objectives that the Government set out in 1985. If sport and recreation can improve the health and well-being of the nation, foster pride in the promotion of excellence and fulfil the aim of alleviating social stress, the Minister has indeed a major responsibility, and I welcome the opportunity to hear his plans. I hope that he will have time to comment on central

and local government funding, on shared and joint use, particularly in education, and the loss of open public space in urban areas. I hope that he will be able to comment also on the House's continued belief in the benefit of competitive school sport.
The Minister has only just returned from India. He will not have had time to study the report, but I hope that he will carefully read the booklet — published only on Monday of this week—which deals with sport for the disabled. His own area of Lewisham was largely responsible for the production of that report, and I commend it to the House. I hope that he will join me in expressing dismay at the dreadful example set by one of the nation's great athletes in peddling in the drug trade. It diminished him and sport, and it corrupts our young people.
I should like the Minister to comment on the Government's policy on centres of excellence. The flag-bearers of each sport motivate the rest. The Minister will know that, in regard to our own sport of rowing and other water sports, prior to the creation of the national water sports centre — the Holme Pierrepont centre in Nottingham—rowing successes in this country were a pipedream. One gold and one silver medal were the sum total of our sports effort in that regard. Since the creation of the Holme Pierrepont centre of excellence, we have probably achieved that sort of medal tally, on average, each year over the past 20 years.
I am aware that the Government are trying to obtain value for money. Some centres are trying to achieve a near balanced budget. But I am equally aware that they can do more to generate additional income. I hope that the Minister will not throw the baby out with the bath water. In Nottingham—I am sure that it applies to a greater or lesser degree in other centres — some facilities are nothing more than open country parks. Nobody really expects a local authority to run a local park as a successful commercial enterprise.
Millions of people kick a ball, fish, climb, swim, row, paddle, or just watch. What they do greatly adds to their quality of life. The overall effect on the totality of the nation's well-being is beyond measure. I hope to hear the Minister say that he shares my hopes and ambitions for sport and recreation and endorses the objectives that the Government set out in 1985.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) on securing an Adjournment debate on this subject, albeit at this late hour on a Tuesday. The day started about five and a half hours earlier for me than for my hon. Friend as I was aboard an aeroplane leaving Delhi to return in time for the consideration in committee of the Public Utilities and Water Charges Bill. My voice has suffered from such a long day.
I congratulate my hon. Friend also on his commitment to sport and recreation, which is well known inside and outside the House. His keenness to ensure at an early stage that a debate was secured on sports policy is reflected in his success in the ballot. I know that he has made consistent representations to try to ensure that success in recent weeks. I congratulate him on his achievement this evening.
My hon. Friend represents part of a city that has a proud record as a sporting centre. I shall take three examples. In water sports, with which my personal association has been the strongest, it is appropriate for me to pay a tribute to my hon. Friend. His contribution has been remarkable and important in rowing. I am delighted to have the opportunity to pay tribute to him accordingly. Nottingham has also been important in its contribution to football, and this year especially in cricket.
I shall say a few words about cricket before I take up my main theme. I refer especially to the achievement of the England cricket team in the final of the world cup. Hon. Members will know that I was present for the world cup final in Calcutta on Sunday. It was important in the MCC's bicentenary year to offer the cricketers and administrators alike our congratulations on doing superbly well to reach the final. There were moments—even close to the end—when it looked as if we might have an England victory to celebrate. I must also congratulate the Indian and Pakistani authorities on organising such a successful competition. Everyone I met in Calcutta was full of praise for the way the organisation had worked. I know that we all wish the England team well for the rest of its tour.
The theme of this debate—the future of sports policy—is a particularly relevant one for me as a new Sports Minister, and I would like to use this opportunity to invite a wider debate on what should be the Government's aims in their sports policy and how best should we organise ourselves to achieve these aims.
The subject is an important one to many people in this country for 21 million adults and 7 million children actively participate in some form of sport or exercise. The sports industry provides about 400,000 jobs, and my hon. Friend was right to mention the substantial turnover that that has created. Most of our national press devotes three or four pages to the subject every day.
Central Government's direct role in all this is a limited one, and rightly so. We do not want Government programmes on the east European scale. Our direct financial contribution is through the Sports Council, whose grant for next year will be £38·8 million, nearly £2 million more than this year. I thank the Sports Council for the welcome that it has given this increase. Its figure compares well with the level of spending that we inherited from the Labour Government in 1979—£15 million a year. There has been a substantial increase in real terms since this Government took office.
I believe that we need to consider what we seek to achieve through this expenditure and, of course, through the use of such influence the Government may exert in other, non-financial ways. Part of our purpose must he to attempt to preserve the good name of British sport by countering the abuses. On drugs, for example, I have been very pleased by the response that there has been to the report that Sebastian Coe and myself produced and by the swift way in which the Sports Council has moved to act on the report. The use of drugs distorts the very principles of sport. It should have no place in sporting activity. We do not want top-level sport to become competition between chemists' laboratories. I am glad that Britain is now in the forefront of national and international efforts to drive drugs out of sport.
We must also be firm in our efforts to counter another form of abuse, that of violence both on and off the sports field. We have taken initial steps forward in combating football hooliganism. I shall continue to press for further action with the Football League, and I shall not hesitate to ask those who are not doing enough to do more. Violence on the field is no less serious an abuse, not just in football but in all sports. If players break the rules, still more if they are violent to one another, there is a major responsibility on governing bodies to take determined action.
The curbing of drug abuse and violence are matters which any Government must be concerned with but our role in sport must have wider policy aims too. I suggest three. First, we must improve the nation's health. Particularly, the United Kingdom has a relatively high death rate from heart disease. Sport and exercise help to reduce that rate and the heavy call on health resources. This will help to promote the benefits of participation in sport for individuals and for the community. Secondly, we must alleviate social deprivation. Sport can and should be used as a policy tool in areas of high unemployment and deprivation. In particular, sport and recreation can provide a catalyst for channelling the energies of the young into constructive and satisfying activities contributing to their self-esteem and discipline. Both recreational and competitive sport can also contribute to community confidence and cohesion, especially in pockets of social deprivation. Thirdly, we must help to promote excellence in sport at national and international levels. Some help is necessary to enable prospective international competitors to meet their rivals on equivalent terms. Success in sport reflects well on both our standing in the world and on trade and morale.
In developing these aims, we must seek, first, to extend participation in sport and recreation, especially among young people. Secondly, we should find ways of directing necessary resources to top-level and "elite" sportsmen and women to encourage competitive involvement at national level. The two run in parallel.
The private sector has an important and increasing role to play in financing sport. It already plays a major part—£160 million per annum by way of sponsorship for sport at all levels. The interest for companies in promoting major events and top competitors is obvious. It is an important fact of commercial life that financial support for sport is an integral part of the marketing mix of companies seeking to target sales at specific consumer groups. It is no longer an era dominated by altruism and patronage. All involved in sport from governing bodies to coaches need to recognise and respond accordingly. Some leading firms are now interested in initiatives to support additional provision for young people. We should build on this. Positive steps must be taken to encourage substantially more private sector involvement.
Local authorities must seek to make more use of the private sector in providing sporting facilities for people in their area. The House will be aware that we are now consulting about the possibility of requiring competition for the management of local authority sports centres. There are abundant examples of the success of competition in improving local authority services. With better management, differential pricing, keener marketing we may hope to widen the availability and use of sports facilities. We shall have to see what results the consultation process brings.
We must ensure that those in social and educational need are encouraged to participate in sport at all levels. We have recognised the importance of proper physical education and sport provision for all children by proposing that physical education should be a foundation subject within the national core curriculum.
If the aims that I have described—or something very like them—are those that the Government should seek to achieve in their sports policy, are we going the right way about achieving them? I shall be writing to the Sports Council chairman shortly. This will form the basis for a consultation exercise involving all those with an interest in sport and recreation.
The challenges faced by the sporting world have changed in 15 years since the Sports Council was established. People play a wider range of sports for one thing. Commercial pressures are much more closely involved with sport. The sporting world is much more complex now with trust funds, contract commitments, pressure from television, professionalism, drugs and appearance money. We need to consider the implications of these and many other changes.
I would like to look, with the Sports Council and others in the sporting world, at what the emphasis of our policies should he in the future. I hope that in doing so we may build on the consultation exercise which the council has just completed. My open letter to the chairman will aim to stimulate debate on these issues by asking a number of questions. I am determined to use the time while I am Minister for Sport to ensure that we focus our attention on the best possible policy for the 1990s.
Important questions need answering. Are we striking the right balance between providing for sporting excellence and encouraging wider participation? Should the Sports Council concentrate more of its efforts on local programmes to promote participation in sport, perhaps through strengthening its regional structure? How best can it generate the interest of local industry and commerce? What more can it do to strengthen links with local education authorities? What scope is there for encouraging the governing bodies of individual sports to seek more private sector sponsorship? How best can more private sponsorship be attracted towards the cost of supporting elite competitors, building on the success, for example of the Sports Aid Foundation? Can the Sports Aid Trust extend its excellent work to generate and direct further resources to support local schemes for those in social and economic need?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Before my hon. Friend moves away from the commercial sponsorship of sport. will he say something about the difficulties advertising logos give the media? The question of how big or how small a logo should be causes problems for many of the national sports bodies. We should be able to find a simple answer.

Mr. Moynihan: Throughout the wide range of sports which have sought television coverage and which have entered into negotiations with television companies there has been an apparent discrepancy in the size of the logo and of sponsors' names and, where relevant, the extent of the use of the sponsors' names during television coverage. Work needs to be done on giving clear guidelines to all governing bodies. This may be an ideal opportunity for the Central Council of Physical Recreation to bring together all the knowledge and expertise which it has at its disposal and to produce guidelines for the governing bodies that it represents. I will put that important suggestion to the CCPR and I hope that it will respond to it. I hope that assists my hon. Friend.
Other important questions will. I hope, form part of the debate in coming months. If there is a continuing need for public support for elite competitors, as I believe there is, is there a case for channelling it through a body other than the Sports Council, perhaps the British Olympic Association? How might the running of the six national sports centres be improved? Can we bring in more competitive tendering to their operations? It is very important to bear in mind the contribution that my hon. Friend has already made to the consultation exercise this evening in his perceptive remarks about Holme Pierrepont which has been an important catalyst for our rowing crews in the generation of success at international and national level. I shall consider in detail the points that my hon. Friend has made. I am delighted that his speech began the period of consultation that we shall continue.
Finally, I believe that we have to address the question of how best all of us involved in the administration of sport and recreation can serve the interests of sports men and women, for it is their interests which must come first. I think that12 the House will agree that these are important questions and that it is right that we should be asking them. I hope that we shall have a constructive debate. I repeat my thanks to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to foreshadow it now.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Nine o'clock pm on Wednesday 11 November.